Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — AMD Ryzen 9 7900X + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

The combination of AMD's 12-core Ryzen 9 7900X with NVIDIA's entry-level GTX 1650 produces a severely GPU-limited experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, where the processor's substantial headroom is largely wasted. Benchmark results show the system ranking 1694th out of 1795 tested combos for this game, placing it in the bottom 6% of configurations. The GTX 1650, which sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, becomes the bottleneck at every resolution and settings level, while the Ryzen 9 7900X, at the 93rd percentile among CPUs, remains underutilized throughout.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent, confirming the GPU as the limiting component. At Low settings, the measured average falls from 50.8 FPS at 1920x1080 to 41.2 FPS at 2560x1440, then plunges to 26.3 FPS at 3840x2160 — a 48% reduction from 1080p to 4K. Under High settings, the decline is even more pronounced: 30.1 FPS at 1080p drops to 21.2 FPS at 1440p and bottoms out at 16.7 FPS at 4K, a 45% loss. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU with only 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and a 128-bit bus, where pixel throughput and memory bandwidth (128.1 GB/s) become decisive factors as resolution climbs.

The 1080p-to-1440p transition at Medium settings shows a 20% performance hit (38.0 to 30.5 FPS), while the 1440p-to-4K step at Medium costs another 33% (30.5 to 20.4 FPS). These non-linear drops indicate that the GTX 1650's 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply insufficient for the higher resolution workloads. The data shows that even at 1080p Low, the system only achieves 50.8 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold many flight sim enthusiasts consider acceptable for smooth scenery panning.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 brings 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 128-bit bus, and 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth to this configuration. Its base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz are modest by modern standards, and the 75 W TDP with no power connectors indicates a card designed for minimal power draw rather than sustained high performance. The GPU's benchmark scores reinforce this: its PassMark G3D score of 7880 and average benchmark score of 8713 place it at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (0.5% higher score) and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (0.5% lower score).

In Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the 4 GB VRAM capacity becomes a critical constraint. The game's high-resolution textures and complex scenery data easily exceed this limit at 1440p and 4K, forcing the GPU to swap data through the relatively narrow 128-bit memory interface. The result is that Ultra settings at 4K yield only 18.9 FPS, while High at 4K produces 16.7 FPS — barely a 2 FPS difference, suggesting that the GPU is hitting memory bandwidth limits rather than compute limits at these extreme resolutions. The GTX 1650's DirectX 12 PassMark score of 35 (out of a possible higher range) indicates weak DX12 performance, which is particularly relevant given Microsoft Flight Simulator's use of DirectX 12.

How This Combo Ranks

This configuration ranks 1694th out of 1795 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 5.6% of all tested systems. This poor ranking is directly attributable to the GPU: the Ryzen 9 7900X is a top-tier processor with an average benchmark score of 50556 and a 93rd percentile standing, while the GTX 1650's 43rd percentile GPU score drags the entire system down. The data shows a massive imbalance — the CPU's nearest rivals (Intel Core Ultra 5 235 at -0.1% delta, AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT at -0.4% delta) all outperform it by less than 1%, yet none of this processing power translates into playable frame rates in this title.

The GPU's nearest rivals tell a similar story of mediocrity: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and AMD Radeon 550X are within 0.4% of its average score, while the Quadro P2200 and Radeon Pro WX 5100 are within 0.5%. This tight clustering around a mid-low performance band means the GTX 1650 is essentially interchangeable with several other budget-oriented GPUs, none of which are well-suited to the demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator at high resolutions. For context, the system's best measured result (50.8 FPS at 1080p Low) still falls short of what would be considered smooth gameplay, and the ranking reflects this reality.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data strongly favors Low settings at 1080p as the only playable configuration, delivering 50.8 FPS. Medium at 1080p drops to 38.0 FPS, which is still functional but noticeably less smooth, while High and Ultra both yield 30.1 FPS — identical results that suggest the GPU is memory-limited rather than compute-limited at these settings. At 1440p, Low settings provide 41.2 FPS, which may be acceptable for less demanding flight scenarios, but Medium drops to 30.5 FPS and High/Ultra fall to 21.2 and 22.0 FPS respectively, making them marginal at best.

At 4K, no settings level achieves even 30 FPS: Low gives 26.3 FPS, Medium 20.4 FPS, Ultra 18.9 FPS, and High 16.7 FPS. The recommendation is clear: users should run 1080p Low for the best experience, accepting the visual compromises that come with a 4 GB GPU. If higher resolutions are mandatory, Low settings at 1440p (41.2 FPS) is the only viable option, though users should expect reduced texture detail and shorter draw distances. The negligible difference between High and Ultra at 1080p (both 30.1 FPS) suggests that Ultra provides no measurable benefit and should be avoided to save resources.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080:

• Low: 50.8 FPS average — the only configuration exceeding 50 FPS
• Medium: 38.0 FPS average
• High: 30.1 FPS average
• Ultra: 30.1 FPS average (identical to High)

2560x1440:

• Low: 41.2 FPS average
• Medium: 30.5 FPS average
• High: 21.2 FPS average
• Ultra: 22.0 FPS average (slightly higher than High, within margin of error)

3840x2160:

• Low: 26.3 FPS average
• Medium: 20.4 FPS average
• High: 16.7 FPS average
• Ultra: 18.9 FPS average (paradoxically higher than High)

The Ultra-at-4K result (18.9 FPS) exceeding High-at-4K (16.7 FPS) suggests measurement variance or driver-level optimizations, but both are effectively unplayable. The data shows a consistent pattern: each settings tier costs roughly 20-30% performance at the same resolution, while each resolution step costs 30-50% at the same settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best performance this system can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 50.8 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other configuration reaches 50 FPS.

Q: Is 4K gaming viable with this combo?

A: No. All 4K settings yield averages below 30 FPS (Low: 26.3, Medium: 20.4, High: 16.7, Ultra: 18.9), making the experience unplayable.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its closest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score of 8713 is within 0.5% of the Quadro P2200 (8671) and Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8761), and within 0.4% of the RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746) and Radeon 550X (8749).

Q: Why do High and Ultra settings produce identical FPS at 1080p?

A: Both yield 30.1 FPS at 1920x1080, suggesting the 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are saturated before the GPU's compute capacity becomes limiting.

Q: What is the system's overall ranking for this game?

A: It ranks 1694th out of 1795 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 6% of all configurations tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: Is the Ryzen 9 7900X the bottleneck in this system?

A: No. The CPU's 93rd percentile standing and 50556 average benchmark score indicate it has ample headroom, but the GTX 1650's 43rd percentile GPU performance prevents it from being utilized effectively.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor from the 7000 series, built on TSMC's 5 nm process with Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Raphael). It operates at a base clock of 4.70 GHz and boosts to 5.60 GHz, with 64 MB of shared L3 cache and 83.2 GB/s of dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth. Its benchmark results are exceptional: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 43695 and single-core 6168, while PassMark multithread reaches 51406 with a single-thread score of 4238. These numbers place it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals like the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 (0.1% lower) and Intel Core i9-13980HX (0.8% lower) all within 1% of its average score.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, however, this processing power is largely dormant. The game's measured FPS at 1080p Low (50.8) versus 4K Low (26.3) shows a 48% reduction that is entirely attributable to GPU limitations, not CPU constraints. The Ryzen 9 7900X's 24 threads and high boost clocks are designed for multi-threaded workloads like rendering and compilation, but flight simulation at these settings simply cannot leverage that capability when the GTX 1650 delivers only 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The CPU's 170 W TDP and 93% percentile ranking make it a premium component that is effectively wasted in this pairing — the system would likely perform nearly identically with a mid-range processor, as the GPU is the sole determinant of frame rates across all measured configurations.