Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator pairs the 16-core AMD Ryzen 9 5950X with the entry-level NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, and the benchmark data reveals a system where the GPU is the decisive bottleneck at every resolution. The measured frames per second (FPS) across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K show that this combination ranks in the bottom percentile of tested systems, making it a study in how a powerful processor cannot compensate for a limited graphics card in a simulation that is heavily dependent on rendering load.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is dramatic and clearly indicates the GPU is the limiting component. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 48.9 FPS, but this falls to 37.0 FPS at 2560x1440 and 25.9 FPS at 3840x2160 — a reduction of 24.3% from 1080p to 1440p and a further 30.0% from 1440p to 4K. This steep scaling pattern is classic behavior for a graphics card that is running out of pixel throughput, as the GTX 1650's 128-bit memory bus and 4 GB of VRAM struggle with the increasing pixel count.

The trend persists across all settings presets. With Medium settings, the drop is from 34.4 FPS at 1080p to 33.1 FPS at 1440p (a 3.8% decline) and then to 24.3 FPS at 4K (a 26.6% decline). Interestingly, the 1080p-to-1440p gap is narrow for Medium, suggesting that at this preset, the CPU can still feed the GPU adequately at 1080p, but the 4K jump overwhelms the graphics processor. For High settings, the numbers are 27.7 FPS at 1080p, 19.7 FPS at 1440p, and 16.1 FPS at 4K, showing a 28.9% drop from 1080p to 1440p and an 18.3% drop from 1440p to 4K, which indicates that 1440p is already pushing the GPU to its limit.

What this data implies is that the Ryzen 9 5950X is not the constraining factor in resolution scaling. If the CPU were limiting performance, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, since the processor's workload is largely independent of pixel count. Instead, the consistent and substantial FPS erosion with higher resolutions points directly to the GTX 1650 as the bottleneck, with its 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 128.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth being insufficient for the demands of this flight simulator at higher pixel densities.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650's specifications explain its performance ceiling. With 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, the memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s is modest, and the 8 Gbps effective memory speed is not enough to feed the 896 shading units at higher resolutions. The boost clock of 1665 MHz and base clock of 1485 MHz are standard for this class, but the 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate and 93.24 GTexel/s texture rate are simply too low for a game that renders vast landscapes and detailed cockpits.

In this game's results, the GPU's role is dominant. At 1080p Low, the 48.9 FPS is the only playable score, and it drops to 27.7 FPS at High. This 43.4% reduction from Low to High at the same resolution shows how sensitive the GTX 1650 is to texture and shading complexity. The benchmark data shows no scenario where the GPU is not the primary limiter; even at the lowest settings, the FPS does not exceed 48.9, which is below the 60 FPS target that many users would consider smooth. The 4 GB VRAM is also a concern, as Flight Simulator can exceed this capacity at higher settings, leading to potential stuttering or texture pop-in, although the average FPS numbers already indicate a poor experience.

The GPU's percentile rank of 43 against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8713, places it in the lower half of graphics cards. Compared to its nearest rivals, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (with a deltaPct of -0.4) and the AMD Radeon 550X (also -0.4), the GTX 1650 is essentially on par with these mobile and low-end desktop parts. This confirms that the GPU is a weak link for this simulation, and the measured FPS data reflects that, with no resolution or settings combination achieving a fluid experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank for this pairing is 1746 out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 2.7% of all systems. This is a very poor ranking, and it underscores the mismatch between the high-end CPU and the low-end GPU. The Ryzen 9 5950X is a top-tier processor, ranking in the 93rd percentile against all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 49062. Its nearest CPU rivals include the Intel Core i5-14600K (with a deltaPct of -0.2) and the Intel Core i5-14600KF (with a deltaPct of -0.6), which show that the 5950X is competitive with modern mid-range to high-end Intel chips.

However, the GPU is the opposite. The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 8713 and its 43rd percentile ranking mean that this combo is heavily skewed toward CPU performance. When the two are paired, the GPU's limitations drag the entire system down to near the bottom of the ranking. The data suggests that this combination would only be chosen if the user already owned the 5950X and was using a placeholder GPU, or if the system is used for non-gaming tasks where the CPU's 16 cores and 32 threads are more valuable. For Flight Simulator, the low combo rank is a direct result of the GPU being unable to process the graphical load, regardless of the CPU's immense multi-threaded capabilities.

The fact that the combo ranks so low, despite the CPU's high benchmark scores, is a clear indication that the game's performance is not CPU-bound in this configuration. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect a higher combo rank, as the 5950X would be feeding the GPU adequately. Instead, the ranking reflects that the GTX 1650 is the weakest link, and this pairing is not suitable for this game beyond the most basic settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the only settings preset that approaches playability is 1080p with Low settings, which yields an average of 48.9 FPS. This is the only configuration that exceeds 40 FPS, and even then, it is below the 60 FPS threshold that would be considered smooth for most players. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 34.4 FPS, which is a 29.7% reduction from Low and is likely to feel stuttery. High and Ultra at 1080p are worse, with 27.7 FPS and 27.4 FPS respectively, which are nearly identical and suggest that the GPU is hitting a hard ceiling.

At 1440p, the best option is Low with 37.0 FPS, but this is still below the 1080p Low figure and is only marginally better than 1080p Medium. The 1440p Medium score of 33.1 FPS is close to the 1080p Medium score, which again indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor, not the resolution. For 4K, all settings are unplayable, with the highest being Low at 25.9 FPS and the lowest being High at 16.1 FPS.

The data implies that users should stick with 1080p Low for the best experience, as it is the only preset that provides a reasonably consistent frame rate. If the user accepts lower FPS, 1080p Medium is an option, but the jump from Low to Medium only adds 5.7 FPS, which is not worth the visual improvement. There is no benefit to using Ultra at any resolution, as the FPS is essentially the same as High at 1080p (27.4 vs 27.7) and 1440p (21.0 vs 19.7), indicating that the extra settings are not being rendered due to GPU limitations. In summary, the data recommends 1080p Low, and even then, users should expect a less-than-smooth experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS is 48.9, which occurs at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other setting or resolution exceeds this value in the measured data.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X the bottleneck in this system for this game?

A: No, the benchmark data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor. The FPS drops significantly with higher resolutions, which is a GPU-bound behavior. The 5950X ranks in the 93rd percentile of CPUs, while the GTX 1650 ranks in the 43rd percentile of GPUs, confirming the GPU is the weaker component.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rival in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8713. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, has a score of 8746, which is a deltaPct of -0.4, meaning the GTX 1650 is 0.4% slower. The AMD Radeon 550X has a score of 8749 with the same -0.4 deltaPct, indicating they are all very closely matched.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between 1080p Low and 4K Low?

A: At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 48.9. At 4K Low, it is 25.9. This represents a 47.0% reduction in FPS when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same Low settings preset.

Q: Does the game run better at 1440p Medium or 1080p High?

A: The data shows 1080p High averages 27.7 FPS, while 1440p Medium averages 33.1 FPS. Therefore, 1440p Medium is faster by 5.4 FPS, despite the higher resolution, because the Medium preset is less demanding than High.

Q: What is the combo's rank relative to all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 1746 out of 1795 total combinations, placing it in the bottom 2.7% of all tested systems for this game.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Its massive multi-threading capability is evident in benchmark scores like the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 38607 and the Geekbench multi-core score of 12084. However, in this game, the CPU's role is largely secondary to the GPU. The measured FPS data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor, as performance scales with resolution, which is a GPU workload.

The 5950X's single-thread performance is also strong, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5450 and a Geekbench single-core score of 2211. Flight Simulator is known to be sensitive to single-thread performance, so the 5950X should be more than adequate for the game's simulation logic. However, the data indicates that even with this powerful CPU, the system cannot achieve high FPS because the GTX 1650 cannot keep up with the rendering demands. The CPU's 64 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support are also not the issue, as the bottleneck is clearly the graphics card.

The CPU's percentile rank of 93 against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 49062, shows it is a top-tier processor. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-14600K, has an average score of 49166, which is a deltaPct of -0.2, meaning the 5950X is essentially tied with it in synthetic benchmarks. This suggests that the CPU is not holding back the system in any meaningful way. The data implies that if the GPU were upgraded, the 5950X would be able to support much higher frame rates, but as it stands, the CPU's potential is untapped in this benchmark.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 48.9 FPS, Medium delivers 34.4 FPS, High delivers 27.7 FPS, and Ultra delivers 27.4 FPS. The progression shows a steep drop from Low to Medium, a smaller drop to High, and then a negligible difference between High and Ultra. This indicates that the GPU is saturated by the High settings, and Ultra adds no additional load that the card can handle.

At 2560x1440, the scores are 37.0 FPS for Low, 33.1 FPS for Medium, 19.7 FPS for High, and 21.0 FPS for Ultra. The drop from Low to Medium is only 3.9 FPS, but from Medium to High is a significant 13.4 FPS, suggesting that High settings introduce a rendering feature that is particularly taxing on the GTX 1650. The Ultra score being higher than High is notable, as it may indicate a measurement anomaly or that certain Ultra settings are not actually applied due to VRAM limitations.

At 3840x2160, the results are 25.9 FPS for Low, 24.3 FPS for Medium, 16.1 FPS for High, and 18.9 FPS for Ultra. The 4K resolution is clearly beyond the capabilities of this GPU, with all presets falling below 26 FPS. The difference between Low and Medium is just 1.6 FPS, showing that the GPU is almost entirely bottlenecked by the pixel count. The High and Ultra scores are both below 19 FPS, confirming that 4K is not viable for this combination. Overall, the data shows a consistent pattern: the GTX 1650 is the limiting factor, and only 1080p Low offers a playable frame rate.