Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator pairs an eight-core AMD Ryzen 7 9700F with a modest NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, a combination that ranks near the bottom of the database’s tested configurations. The measured frame rates across resolutions and settings tell a clear story of a system where the graphics card becomes the decisive bottleneck, while the processor’s strong multi-threaded and single-threaded scores suggest it is not the limiting factor in most scenarios. This analysis draws exclusively from the supplied benchmark data to explain how each component contributes to the game’s results.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is a desktop processor built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Granite Ridge, using a 4 nm process from TSMC. It packs 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The CPU’s 65 W TDP and support for DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth indicate a modern, efficient design. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache, which is typical for a mainstream desktop part.

In synthetic benchmarks, the Ryzen 7 9700F posts a PassMark multithread score of 36470 and a single-thread score of 4691. These numbers place it in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of processors in the database. Its average benchmark score is 69996, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX (avg score 69875, delta 0.2%), Intel Core i7-14700KF (avg score 70163, delta -0.2%), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (avg score 69515, delta 0.7%), and Intel Core i7-14700K (avg score 69355, delta 0.9%). These deltas are tiny—less than 1% in all cases—showing that the 9700F sits in a tightly packed performance tier.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy simulation logic and complex scenery loading, a strong CPU is beneficial. The Ryzen 7 9700F’s 8 cores and 16 threads provide ample parallel processing capability, and its high boost clock of 5.50 GHz ensures snappy single-threaded performance. However, the measured FPS in this game are far below what this CPU could theoretically support if paired with a faster GPU. For example, at 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 48 FPS, but at 4K Ultra it drops to 16 FPS. The CPU’s PassMark physics score of 2122 and floating-point math score of 77955 suggest it can handle the game’s calculations, but the GPU is unable to keep pace.

The CPU’s memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s is another factor. Flight Simulator streams terrain and aircraft data continuously, and while DDR5 support is present, the actual frame rates indicate that memory throughput is not the primary constraint here. The fact that the Ryzen 7 9700F’s nearest rivals differ by less than 1% in average score reinforces that this processor is not an outlier in either direction—it is a solid mid-to-high-end part that should not bottleneck a GTX 1650. Instead, the data points to the GPU as the component that defines the experience.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is an end-of-life graphics card from the GeForce 16-series, based on the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip. It uses a 12 nm process and has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU’s base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and its 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs deliver a peak FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s. The card has a 75 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

In synthetic benchmarks, the GTX 1650 scores 7880 in PassMark G3D and 3048 in PassMark GPU compute, placing it in the 40th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (avg score 7447, delta 0.3%), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (avg score 7441, delta 0.4%), AMD Radeon R7 350 (avg score 7425, delta 0.6%), and Intel Arc A310 (avg score 7550, delta -1%). These are all low-end or integrated solutions, confirming that the GTX 1650 sits at the entry level of discrete GPUs.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s 4 GB VRAM is a critical limitation. The game’s high-resolution textures and detailed environments can exceed 4 GB, especially at 1440p and 4K. The measured FPS drop sharply as resolution increases. At 1080p Low, the system manages 48 FPS, which is playable, but at 1440p Low it falls to 39 FPS, and at 4K Low it drops to 29 FPS. These numbers are far below what a modern GPU would deliver, and they show that the GTX 1650 is struggling to process the geometry and shading workload.

The boost clock of 1665 MHz is respectable for a card of this class, but the raw compute throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS is simply insufficient for Flight Simulator’s demanding rendering. The game’s Ultra settings at any resolution produce average FPS in the low 20s or teens—27 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p, and 16 FPS at 4K. Even Medium settings, which might be considered a reasonable compromise, yield 37 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 22 FPS at 4K. The GPU’s 40th percentile ranking aligns with these results: it is a low-tier card that cannot provide smooth gameplay in a graphically intensive title.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern of degradation as resolution increases. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 48 at 1080p to 39 at 1440p (a drop of 9 FPS, or 18.75%) and then to 29 at 4K (a further drop of 10 FPS, or 25.6% from 1440p). At Medium settings, the averages are 37 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 22 FPS at 4K, with minimum FPS of 32, 26, and 19 respectively, and maximum FPS of 43, 35, and 26. High settings show 28 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings yield 27 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p, and 16 FPS at 4K.

This scaling behavior is indicative of a GPU-bound system. When the resolution increases, the number of pixels the GPU must render grows, and the GTX 1650’s limited pixel fill rate (53.28 GPixel/s) and memory bandwidth (128.1 GB/s) become more pronounced bottlenecks. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain relatively flat across resolutions because the processor’s workload does not change with pixel count. Instead, we see substantial drops, which means the GPU is saturated.

For example, going from 1080p to 4K at Low settings reduces FPS from 48 to 29, a 39.6% decrease. At Ultra settings, the drop is from 27 to 16 FPS, a 40.7% decrease. The consistency of these percentage drops across settings suggests the GPU is the primary constraint in all cases. Even at 1080p, the highest average FPS is only 48, which is below the 60 FPS target most gamers prefer. This further confirms that the GTX 1650 cannot fully utilize the Ryzen 7 9700F’s capabilities.

The CPU’s strong benchmark scores—94th percentile overall—mean it has headroom to feed a more powerful GPU. The fact that the system cannot exceed 48 FPS even at the lowest resolution and settings is a direct consequence of the GPU’s performance ceiling. In this configuration, the Ryzen 7 9700F is effectively waiting for the GTX 1650 to finish rendering each frame, and any future GPU upgrade would likely yield significant FPS gains without needing a processor change.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings/resolution combination for this CPU-GPU pair?

A: Based on the measured data, 1080p Low settings provides the highest average FPS at 48, with 1080p Medium achieving 37 FPS. At 1440p, Low settings drops to 39 FPS, while 4K Low is only 29 FPS. For playable performance, 1080p Low or Medium is recommended.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 9700F compare to its nearest CPU rivals?

A: The Ryzen 7 9700F has an average benchmark score of 69996. Its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX, scores 69875 (0.2% higher), while the Intel Core i7-14700KF scores 70163 (0.2% lower). The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X scores 69515 (0.7% higher), and the Intel Core i7-14700K scores 69355 (0.9% higher). All deltas are within 1%, indicating near-identical performance.

Q: Is the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM sufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows that the GPU struggles at higher resolutions. At 4K, average FPS ranges from 16 to 29 depending on settings, which is far below acceptable. The 4 GB VRAM likely contributes to these low results, as the game’s textures and geometry can exceed that capacity, but the GPU’s overall compute power is also a limiting factor.

Q: Why does FPS drop so significantly when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: The FPS drops are consistent with a GPU-bound scenario. For instance, at Low settings, FPS falls from 48 at 1080p to 29 at 4K, a 39.6% reduction. This occurs because the GTX 1650’s pixel rate and memory bandwidth cannot handle the increased pixel count, while the CPU’s workload remains unchanged.

Q: What percentile ranking does this GPU have, and what does that mean?

A: The GTX 1650 is in the 40th percentile among all GPUs, meaning it performs better than 40% of the database’s GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A310 (avg score 7550, 1% higher) and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (avg score 7447, 0.3% lower), placing it in the low-end tier.

Q: How does this combo rank in the database for this game?

A: The combination of the Ryzen 7 9700F and GTX 1650 ranks 2885 out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 4% of configurations, reflecting the GPU’s severe performance limitation.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo of AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 holds a rank of 2885 out of 2996 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it near the very bottom of the database, with only 111 combos performing worse. Given that the CPU alone is in the 94th percentile, this poor ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU, which sits in the 40th percentile.

The rank of 2885 means that this system will struggle with Flight Simulator at most settings. The measured FPS data supports this: no setting/resolution combination reaches 60 FPS, and even 1080p Low only achieves 48 FPS. The combo’s position in the bottom 4% is consistent with the GPU’s low-end nature, as the GTX 1650 was released in 2019 and is now end-of-life. In contrast, the Ryzen 7 9700F is a current-generation part (released 2025), creating a significant performance imbalance.

For context, the CPU’s nearest rivals—all within 1% in average score—would likely produce similar rankings when paired with the same GPU. The bottleneck is not the processor but the graphics card. This suggests that any user with this combo would benefit more from a GPU upgrade than a CPU swap. The data shows that the combo’s rank is driven by the GPU’s inability to render the game at playable frame rates, particularly at higher resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four settings levels (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). All values are averages, with some Medium settings also reporting minimum and maximum FPS.

At 1920x1080, the system achieves an average of 48 FPS on Low, 37 FPS on Medium (min 32, max 43), 28 FPS on High, and 27 FPS on Ultra. These are the highest frame rates in the entire dataset, but even the best case—Low settings—falls short of 60 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 21 FPS, showing that the GPU’s performance degrades significantly with increased visual fidelity.

Moving to 2560x1440, the averages drop to 39 FPS on Low, 30 FPS on Medium (min 26, max 35), 23 FPS on High, and 22 FPS on Ultra. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is noticeable at every settings level, with Low losing 9 FPS, Medium losing 7 FPS, High losing 5 FPS, and Ultra losing 5 FPS. The minimum FPS at Medium (26) is below the average for High (23), indicating inconsistent frame pacing.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 29 FPS on Low, 22 FPS on Medium (min 19, max 26), 17 FPS on High, and 16 FPS on Ultra. This is the worst performance tier, with even Low settings producing less than 30 FPS. The drop from 1440p to 4K is substantial: Low loses 10 FPS, Medium loses 8 FPS, High loses 6 FPS, and Ultra loses 6 FPS. The Ultra setting at 4K produces an average of 16 FPS, which is effectively unplayable.

Across all resolutions, the trend is clear: the GTX 1650 cannot maintain playable frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The highest recorded average is 48 FPS at 1080p Low, and the lowest is 16 FPS at 4K Ultra. The data indicates that users should stick to 1080p and Low or Medium settings to get the best experience, but even then, the system will not provide a smooth 60 FPS experience. The CPU’s strong performance is wasted in this pairing, as the GPU is the definitive limiting factor.