Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X compare to its closest rival in overall CPU benchmark scores?

A: The Ryzen 9 5950X has an average benchmark score of 49062, which is essentially tied with the Intel Core i5-14600K (49166) at a delta of -0.2%. It also trails the Intel Core i5-14600KF (49367) by -0.6% and the AMD EPYC 4345P (49595) by -1.1%, while leading the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698) by 0.7%.

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile, and which rival is closest to it?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT sits at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 29024 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (29011) with a delta of 0%, and it trails the Intel Arc A370M (29175) by just -0.5%.

Q: What are the best and worst measured average FPS results for this combo?

A: The best result is 103.4 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The worst is 35.8 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings. The spread between these two extremes is 67.6 FPS.

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

A: The combination of the Ryzen 9 5950X and Radeon RX 6650 XT ranks 1125th out of 1795 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the upper-middle portion of the field.

Q: What is the CPU's single-thread performance relative to its multi-thread performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ryzen 9 5950X scores 5450 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 38607 in multi-core. The multi-core result is approximately 7.1 times higher than the single-core result, reflecting the processor's 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Does the GPU's memory bandwidth or capacity stand out for this game?

A: The GPU features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is listed at 2190 MHz with 17.5 Gbps effective speed, which supports the measured frame rates across all tested resolutions.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It houses 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines, along with 32 ray tracing cores. The GPU's base clock is 2055 MHz, with a game clock of 2410 MHz and a boost clock of 2635 MHz, providing a foundation for the frame rates measured in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The memory subsystem consists of 8 GB of GDDR6 across a 128-bit bus, yielding 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. At 4K resolution with Ultra settings, the combo produces 35.8 FPS, which suggests the GPU is heavily taxed by both the high pixel count and the simulation's demanding rendering workload. The pixel rate of 168.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 337.3 GTexel/s are relevant when interpreting why lower settings yield disproportionately higher frame rates at the same resolution.

The GPU's FP32 performance is 10.79 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 21.59 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). These compute figures correlate with the measured results: at 1920x1080, the jump from Low (103.4 FPS) to High (58.9 FPS) represents a 43% reduction in frame rate, indicating that the higher preset increases per-pixel work substantially. At 3840x2160, the same settings transition drops from 63.9 FPS to 38.7 FPS, a 39% reduction, showing that the GPU's compute resources become the limiting factor as resolution scales.

The GPU's benchmark percentile of 72 places it above most discrete GPUs, but its nearest rivals — the RX 6800M, RX 470, Arc A370M, and RX Vega M GH — all sit within a 0.6% delta of its average score of 29024. This suggests the RX 6650 XT is a mid-pack performer, which aligns with the measured FPS data showing playable but not exceptional frame rates at higher settings.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator indicates that the Low preset provides the most consistent experience across all resolutions. At 1920x1080, Low yields 103.4 FPS, which is the only setting in the entire dataset that exceeds 100 FPS. Medium at the same resolution delivers 82 FPS, while High drops to 58.9 FPS and Ultra to 57.1 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Low maintains 82.1 FPS, which remains comfortably above the 60 FPS threshold for smooth gameplay. Medium produces 67.1 FPS, while High falls to 51 FPS and Ultra to 46.8 FPS. For users prioritizing frame rate stability at this resolution, Low is the clear choice, though Medium remains viable for those who want improved visual fidelity without dipping below 60 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the situation changes. Low produces 63.9 FPS, which is the only preset at 4K that clears 60 FPS. Medium delivers exactly 50 FPS, High drops to 38.7 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 35.8 FPS. The data suggests that 4K gaming with this combo is only feasible on Low settings; any higher preset will result in sub-60 FPS performance that may feel less responsive in a flight simulator where smooth camera panning matters.

The optimal experience depends on the user's resolution target. At 1080p, Medium (82 FPS) offers a balanced trade-off between visual quality and frame rate. At 1440p, Low (82.1 FPS) is the safest recommendation, though Medium (67.1 FPS) provides a better visual experience for users willing to accept slightly lower frame rates. At 4K, Low (63.9 FPS) is the only sensible option based on the measured data.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers 103.4 FPS on Low, 82 FPS on Medium, 58.9 FPS on High, and 57.1 FPS on Ultra. The difference between Low and Medium is 21.4 FPS (a 21% drop), while the gap between Medium and High is 23.1 FPS (a 28% drop). Interestingly, High and Ultra are nearly identical, with only 1.8 FPS separating them, suggesting diminishing returns beyond the High preset at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the results are 82.1 FPS on Low, 67.1 FPS on Medium, 51 FPS on High, and 46.8 FPS on Ultra. The decline from Low to Medium is 15 FPS (an 18% drop), from Medium to High is 16.1 FPS (a 24% drop), and from High to Ultra is 4.2 FPS (an 8% drop). The 1440p data shows a more linear progression than 1080p, with each preset step costing between 8% and 24% of performance.

At 3840x2160, the measured values are 63.9 FPS on Low, 50 FPS on Medium, 38.7 FPS on High, and 35.8 FPS on Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is 13.9 FPS (a 22% reduction), from Medium to High is 11.3 FPS (a 23% reduction), and from High to Ultra is 2.9 FPS (a 7% reduction). The 4K results mirror the 1440p pattern, with the largest relative losses occurring between Low, Medium, and High, while Ultra adds only marginal overhead.

Across all resolutions, the Low preset consistently delivers the highest frame rates, and the gap between Low and Medium is proportionally similar (18-22%). The High-to-Ultra transition is consistently small (2.9 to 4.2 FPS), indicating that Ultra provides little performance benefit over High while presumably adding visual detail.

Resolution Scaling

The data reveals how frame rates scale from 1080p to 4K across each setting. Starting with Low: 103.4 FPS at 1920x1080 drops to 82.1 FPS at 2560x1440 and further to 63.9 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 20.6% reduction from 1080p to 1440p, and a 38.2% reduction from 1080p to 4K. The scaling is roughly proportional to the pixel count increase, suggesting the GPU is the primary bottleneck at Low settings.

For Medium: 82 FPS at 1080p falls to 67.1 FPS at 1440p (an 18.2% drop) and then to 50 FPS at 4K (a 39% drop from 1080p). The 4K result of exactly 50 FPS indicates a halving of performance relative to 1080p, which aligns with the fourfold increase in pixel count when adjusting for the GPU's compute limits.

For High: 58.9 FPS at 1080p drops to 51 FPS at 1440p (a 13.4% reduction) and then to 38.7 FPS at 4K (a 34.3% reduction from 1080p). The smaller relative drop from 1080p to 1440p compared to Low suggests that the CPU begins to play a larger role at this preset, as the simulation's physics and world generation become more significant relative to pure pixel pushing.

For Ultra: 57.1 FPS at 1080p falls to 46.8 FPS at 1440p (an 18% drop) and then to 35.8 FPS at 4K (a 37.3% drop from 1080p). The Ultra results track closely with High, confirming that the GPU is saturated at these settings and resolution scaling follows a predictable pattern.

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K ranges from 34.3% (High) to 39% (Medium), indicating that the limiting component is the GPU across all presets. If the CPU were the primary constraint, the percentage drops would be much smaller at higher resolutions, as the GPU would have more headroom to work with.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X features 16 cores and 32 threads based on the Zen 3 architecture (Vermeer codename), manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, with a 105 W TDP. The processor supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 51.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and it connects via PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

The CPU's multi-threaded capabilities are substantial: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 38607, while single-core scores 5450. The 3DMark results show a progression from 944 (single-thread) to 1856 (2 threads), 3595 (4 threads), 6598 (8 threads), 10810 (16 threads), and 11597 (max threads). This scaling indicates that the processor benefits from additional threads up to 16, with diminishing returns beyond that point.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is evident when comparing results at the same resolution across different settings. At 1080p, the gap between Low (103.4 FPS) and Ultra (57.1 FPS) is 46.3 FPS, which is a 45% reduction. This large gap suggests that the CPU can feed the GPU adequately at lower settings, but the GPU becomes the bottleneck as visual complexity increases.

The CPU's single-thread performance, as measured by Cinebench R23 single-core (5450) and 3DMark single-thread (944), is critical for flight simulation, which often relies on a single main thread for physics and scenery generation. The Ryzen 9 5950X's high boost clock of 4.90 GHz helps maintain frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios, but the measured data indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K and at higher presets.

The combo's rank of 1125 out of 1795 in this game reflects the balance between the CPU's strong multi-threading and the GPU's mid-range positioning. The CPU's 93rd percentile among all processors means it is not the bottleneck in most scenarios, but the GPU's 72nd percentile limits overall performance, particularly at higher resolutions and settings.