Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 delivers a one-sided bottleneck in Microsoft Flight Simulator: the CPU is clearly strong, but the GPU cannot translate that into playable frame rates. Across all measured presets and resolutions, the highest average is 48 FPS at 1080p Low, and the lowest is 16 FPS at 4K Ultra. The GTX 1650’s 4 GB memory and 128-bit bus make it the decisive constraint, while the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, with eight cores, 16 threads, and a 96 MB L3 cache, sits far above the GPU’s performance tier. This combination ranks 3567 out of 3714 tested systems, placing it in the bottom 4%—a result that reflects the GPU’s low standing within the overall hardware landscape.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: as resolution rises from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, average frame rates drop by roughly one-third at every settings level. For example, at the Low preset, the average goes from 48 FPS → 39 FPS → 29 FPS as resolution steps from 1080p to 1440p to 4K. At Medium, it falls from 37 to 30 to 22; High drops from 28 to 23 to 17; and Ultra goes from 27 to 22 to 16. This consistent slope—approximately 8–10 FPS per step at Low and Medium, and 5–6 FPS per step at High and Ultra—is characteristic of a system where the graphics processor is fully saturated in almost every scenario. The CPU is decidedly not the bottleneck; the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is capable of far more, but even at 1080p Low the GPU cannot exceed 48 FPS, which is already a modest number for a flight sim.

The drop from 1440p to 4K is especially telling. At Low, the difference is 10 FPS (49 to 29); at Medium, 8 FPS (30 to 22); at High, 6 FPS (23 to 17); and at Ultra, also 6 FPS (22 to 16). The proportion is roughly linear, which indicates that the GPU’s memory bandwidth and shader performance are being pressed equally across the entire resolution range, not a sudden switch brought on by VRAM overflow. However, at 4K Ultra, the 16 FPS average stands as the lowest measured figure, and combined with the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM, it strongly suggests that the GPU’s capacity is insufficient for high resolutions plus high graphical complexities. The CPU, meanwhile, is never the limiting factor—the frame rate scales with resolution, not with CPU load.

A key implication of this scaling is that the GTX 1650 is the performance ceiling for this combination, regardless of the CPU’s power. The data show no scenario where the CPU’s 8-core, 16-thread design or its 96 MB L3 cache enables a frame 30% higher spike. Instead, the GPU-watting behavior is uniform, and any attempt to improve FPS by lowering resolution fails to push above 48 FPS, confirming that the GPU’s shader units and ROPS are the limiting factor.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows point to a single clear recommendation: run the game at 1920x1080 with the Medium preset to obtain the most balanced experience. At 1080p Medium, the average FPS reaches 37, with a minimum of 32 and a maximum of 43, which keeps gameplay above the 30 FPS threshold for a flight simulator, while also providing a visible upgrade over the Low preset in terms of visual detail. In contrast, the High preset at 1080p yields 60% target is 28 FPS, and Ultra exactly 28 27 27, barely better than High. Since the difference between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS, Ultra—even at 1080p—is not worth the extra load it implies; the data thus indicates that the GPU cannot effectively drive Ultra at any resolution above lower-end settings.

At 1440p, the Medium preset falls to an average of 30 FPS with a 26 to 35 FPS range, which is marginal for smooth simulation. Low at 1440p gives 39 FPS, but that subjugates the visual complexity of Medium, which is still a necessary upgrade for a simulator that benefits from terrain and cockpit details. At 4K, no preset reaches a playable average: Medium 22 FPS, Low 29 FPS, High 17, and Ultra 16. The data strongly suggests that playing at 4K with this GPU is not viable, regardless of graphics compression.

Given the measured rows, Medium at 1080p is the only combination that delivers a frame count in the 30+ bracket while still offering some graphical noise. The Min and Max values for Medium (32–43) also show a predictable frame, indicating that the variance is relatively low, which aids stability in a flight sim—where sudden frame drops can be disorienting. Players who require an extremely stable 60 FPS will have to use Low at 1080p (48 FPS), but that sacrifices most of the visual filters that define the experience. For the majority, Medium at 1080p is the most pragmatic recommendation derived from these measured numbers.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS recorded with this combo?

A: The highest average FPS is 48 FPS at 1920×1080 with the Low preset. No other preset or resolution reaches that level; the next best is 39 FPS at 1440p Low and 30/37 FPS at 1080p Medium.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck this game?

A: No. The CPU is extremely powerful (8 cores, 16 threads, 96 MB L3, 83rd percentile among all CPUs), but the measured FPS drop linearly with resolution from 48 FPS Low to 16 FPS 4K Ultra. This resolution-scaling pattern indicates the GPU is fully saturated, not the CPU.

Q: Is 4GB of VRAM sufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data show that 4 GB is not enough for high-resolution/high-preset work. At 4K Ultra the average FPS is 16, and at 4K High it's 17, while lowering to Medium only gets 22 FPS. The combination of high resolution and Ultra/Low settings cripples the GTX 1650’s memory bandwidth and capacity.

Q: Where does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: This combo ranks 3567 out of 3714 full system tests. That places it in the bottom 4% of recorded combinations, reflective of the GPU’s weak performance relative to other configurations.

Q: What is the minimum FPS at Medium settings for each resolution?

A: For Medium, the min/max values are: 1080p: 32–43, 1440p: 26–35, and 4K: 19–26. These show that even Medium can dip below 20 FPS at 4K, which is subjectively unplayable.

Q: Does the CPU’s high core count help in this simulator?

A: Since the FPS are uniformly limited by the GPU, the CPU’s eight cores do not boost performance. The fact that all settings and resolutions produce sub-50 FPS indicates a wall constructed entirely by the GPU, not a hardware thread usage limitation.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 7 7800X3D and the GTX 1650 lands at 3567 out of 3714 tested combinations, meaning that only 147 configurations perform worse. This places the system in the bottommost 4% of the test sample, which is a stark contrast to the CPU’s own standing: the CPU reaches the 83rd percentile among microprocessors, while the GPU reaches the 40th percentile among graphics cards. In this game, the low rank is essentially a direct—and almost sole—consequence of the GPU’s inadequate performance for the task. The data contain no table showing a domination by the CPU at any resolution or setting; every measurement is GPU-bound.

Comparing the CPU to its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D shares an all-cpu score of 33079, essentially tied with the Ryzen 7 8700G (33089), i7-13650HX (33089), and Ryzen 7 7745HX (33091), with a delta of 0% against the first three and -0.4% behind.000 one. Many of those CPUs might be combined with a more capable GPU to push far higher in the combo ranking. For the GPU, nearest rivals include the Intel HD Graphics 750 and AMD Radeon R7 350, which lie within 1% of its average score—further emphasizing that the GTX 1650 is a low-end card in the current landscape.

The enormous gap between the CPU’s 83rd percentile and the combo’s 4th percentile directly shows that the GTX 1650 is the deciding factor for the overall system position in Flight Simulator. Even the powerful 8-core/16-thread Zen 4 architecture cannot offset a GPU that the data displays as one that in the bottom half of all GPUs. For any player aiming for a high-rank config, this pairing should be corrected by a substantially stronger GPU.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 carries only 4 GB of GDDR5 across a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its shader count is 896 SP, and its FP32 is 2.984 TFLOPS. These are extremely modest specifications for a 2020 simulation title that prioritizes terrain rendering, weather effects, and complex photogrammetry. The measured FPS reflect those restrictions: even at the lowest settings, the GPU cannot exceed 48 FPS at 1080p, and when the resolution is raised to 4K, the average on Low is a mere 29 FPS.

Given the GPU’s launch MSRP of 149 USD, one might characterize its placement in a system with a Ryzen 7 7800X3D as lopsided, although we refrain from recommending an upgrade path. Instead, we look strictly at the data: the memory size and bandwidth are clearly below what the game demands at the higher indexes. At 4K Ultra, the 16 FPS average indicates a severe scarcity of memory for the textures and geometry of Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is a known—but not independently—t will be mutually acknowledged. The 4.x VRAM is likely that the primary capacity bottleneck, because even at 1440p Low the FPS is 39, which is still not high.

Additionally, the raw performance numbers from the GPU benchmarks—such as PassMark G3D 7880 and Geekbench Vulkan 33042—situate the GTX 1650 well below the performance tier of contemporary GPUs. The CPU’s high compute throughput and 96 MB L3 cache cannot influence measured FPS because this title is GPU-bound, so any suggestion that the CPU could compensate is refuted by the identical pattern of scaling in the data. The GPU’s end-of-life status (End-of-life) and its lack of ADD ray tracing or tensor cores are not directly measured but are consistent with data placing it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table contains all measured FPS values from the benchmark sets of data. The min and max are given only for the Medium preset, as those are the only records that report a range.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|---|---|---|---|---|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 48 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 37 | 32 | 43 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 28 | – | – |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 27 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 39 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 30 | 26 | 35 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 23 | – | – |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 22 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 29 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 22 | 19 | 26 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 17 | – | – |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 16 | – | – |

All numbers are from the measured frames. In summary, the data pattern is unequivocal: the highest FPS set is 1080p Low with 48, which is the only setting that breaks the 45 FPS threshold. Every other resolution/setting combination—including 1080p Medium (37), 1440p Low (39), and 4K Low (29)—falls below that mark. The GTX 1650 has a camera because it can never produce high frame rates; its performance curve is more of a flat line, with only slight downward shifts as resolution rises or as settings approach Ultra. These measured FPS values also confirm that the CPU remains underutilized, because if the CPU were the limit, the frame rates would plateau rather than follow the resolution scaling that is so evident here. As such, any attempt to increase performance must focus on the graphics card, not the processor.