Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination shows a steep and consistent performance cliff as resolution climbs. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo averages 48 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Low drops that to 39 FPS, a decline of roughly 19%. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 29 FPS, which is about 40% below the 1080p result. The pattern is similar across every settings preset, indicating that the rendering pipeline is heavily constrained by something that scales directly with pixel count.

Comparing Medium settings across the three resolutions makes the trend even clearer. At 1080p Medium, the average is 37 FPS, with a minimum of 32 and a maximum of 43. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 30 FPS (min 26, max 35). At 4K Medium, the average is 22 FPS (min 19, max 26). Each step up in resolution removes roughly 7-8 FPS from the average, which is a consistent linear degradation rather than a sudden collapse. This suggests the bottleneck is not a single catastrophic resource failure but rather a steady increase in pixel shading workload that the GPU cannot keep pace with.

The High preset tells a similar story: 28 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset, which is the most demanding, yields 27 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p, and only 16 FPS at 4K. Notably, the gap between High and Ultra at each resolution is small — just 1 FPS at 1080p and 1440p, and 1 FPS at 4K. This indicates that beyond a certain quality threshold, the additional visual fidelity from Ultra settings does not cost much extra, but the resolution increase dominates the performance loss.

What does this say about the limiting component? The CPU, an AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, is a 12-core, 24-thread processor with a boost clock of 5.50 GHz and a large 128 MB L3 cache. Its benchmark scores are formidable: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 47737 and a single-core score of 6739, plus a Geekbench multi-core score of 22884 and single-core score of 3041. In contrast, the GPU, a GeForce GTX 1650, has a passmark G3D score of 7880 and sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs. The GTX 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are modest by modern standards. The data strongly suggests the GPU is the primary limiter: even at Low settings, 4K resolution reduces the frame rate to 29 FPS, which is below playable thresholds for most users. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see less variation between Low and Ultra settings, but the resolution scaling is so pronounced that the pixel throughput of the GTX 1650 is clearly the wall.

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D provides an enormous amount of computational headroom that, in this pairing, largely goes unused. The processor features 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. It is built on TSMC's 4 nm process with a transistor count of 16,630 million across two 70.6 mm² dies. The cache hierarchy is generous: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, offering 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU achieves a PassMark multi-thread score of 56154, a PassMark single-thread score of 4646, and a 3DMark max-threads score of 13795.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for heavy single-threaded simulation logic, the 9900X3D's single-core performance should be more than sufficient. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6739 and Geekbench single-core score of 3041 place it among the top tier of desktop processors. The 3DMark 2-thread score of 2512 and 4-thread score of 4885 also indicate strong low-thread-count performance. Given that the CPU ranks at the 91st percentile among all CPUs and has an average benchmark score of 54762, it is unlikely to be the source of the low FPS numbers seen in the measured data.

The nearest rivals for the CPU, based on average benchmark score, are the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF (55093, delta -0.6%), the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (54053, delta 1.3%), the Intel Xeon 6505P (53701, delta 2%), and the Intel Core i7-14700F (53620, delta 2.1%). The 9900X3D sits right in this pack, slightly ahead of some and slightly behind others, but all within a 3% band. This tells us the CPU is not an outlier in either direction; it is a high-end part that delivers consistent, competitive performance. In the context of this game, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and simulation updates, but at 1080p Low, the 48 FPS result is likely limited by the GPU's ability to rasterize the scene quickly, not by the CPU's ability to calculate flight physics and scenery data. The fact that FPS drops so much at higher resolutions reinforces that the CPU is not the ceiling here.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear performance bottleneck in this combination. This GPU is based on the TU117 chip, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. It has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The base clock is 1485 MHz and the boost clock is 1665 MHz. Memory consists of 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS.

In benchmark terms, the GTX 1650 has a PassMark G3D score of 7880 and a PassMark GPU compute score of 3048. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 305. The GPU sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, delta 0.3%), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, delta 0.4%), the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425, delta 0.6%), and the Intel Arc A310 (7550, delta -1%). This places the GTX 1650 in the lower-midrange tier of graphics hardware, far below what Microsoft Flight Simulator's high-resolution presets demand.

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is particularly problematic for a flight simulator that streams large textures for terrain, aircraft, and weather. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 16, which is effectively a slideshow. Even at 1080p Ultra, the average is only 27 FPS. The small differences between High and Ultra settings at each resolution — 1 FPS at 1080p, 1 FPS at 1440p, and 1 FPS at 4K — suggest that the GPU is already saturated and that turning up settings from High to Ultra adds marginal cost because the GPU is already at its limit. The memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s is also a limiting factor; at higher resolutions, the demand for texture reads and pixel writes exceeds what this bus can provide. The data shows that the GTX 1650 is simply not equipped for 1440p or 4K gaming in this title, and even 1080p requires dropping to Low settings to approach 60 FPS, which this combo does not achieve — the highest 1080p average is 48 FPS at Low.

FAQ

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

A: The highest average FPS is 48, recorded at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck for this combination?

A: The GPU is the main bottleneck. The CPU ranks at the 91st percentile among all CPUs with a strong single-core score of 6739 in Cinebench R23, while the GPU sits at the 40th percentile with a PassMark G3D score of 7880. The steep FPS drops with increasing resolution confirm that the GTX 1650's pixel throughput is the limiting factor.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, while the Intel Arc A310 has a score of 7550, giving the A310 a 1% advantage (delta -1% from the GTX 1650's perspective).

Q: What is the FPS difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, Low settings yield an average of 39 FPS, while Ultra settings yield an average of 22 FPS, a difference of 17 FPS.

Q: Does the 9900X3D's 128 MB L3 cache help in this game?

A: The CPU has a large 128 MB L3 cache, which is beneficial for gaming, but the measured FPS data shows that even with this cache, the combo cannot exceed 48 FPS at 1080p Low, indicating that the GPU is preventing the CPU's cache advantage from manifesting in higher frame rates.

Q: Is 4K playable with this combo?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the best average FPS is 29 at Low settings, and at Ultra it drops to 16 FPS. These are below the generally accepted threshold for smooth gameplay.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 2885 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 4% of all tested configurations, which is a poor result for a system built around a top-tier CPU. The rank of 2885 with 2996 total combos means that 2884 other combinations performed better, and only 111 combos ranked lower. This is a stark illustration of how a weak GPU can drag down an otherwise excellent processor.

To contextualize this rank, consider the CPU's individual standing: the 9900X3D is at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54762, putting it in the same league as the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF (55093) and Intel Core Ultra 5 245K (54053). The GPU, by contrast, is at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 7472, comparable to the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441). The massive gap between the CPU's near-top-tier performance and the GPU's lower-midrange performance is the reason this combo ranks so low. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is graphically demanding, the GPU's limitations dominate the final outcome, undoing the CPU's advantages.

The fact that this combo ranks 2885 out of 2996 suggests that users would need to make significant compromises in visual quality or resolution to get acceptable frame rates. The measured data confirms this: only the 1080p Low preset (48 FPS) approaches what might be considered a smooth experience, while all other presets fall below 40 FPS. The rank also indicates that there are many alternative GPU pairings that would yield far better results with the same CPU, but as tested, this specific combination is near the bottom of the database.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combo's performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. Below is the full breakdown.

At 1920x1080:

• Low: average 48 FPS
• Medium: average 37 FPS, minimum 32 FPS, maximum 43 FPS
• High: average 28 FPS
• Ultra: average 27 FPS

At 2560x1440:

• Low: average 39 FPS
• Medium: average 30 FPS, minimum 26 FPS, maximum 35 FPS
• High: average 23 FPS
• Ultra: average 22 FPS

At 3840x2160:

• Low: average 29 FPS
• Medium: average 22 FPS, minimum 19 FPS, maximum 26 FPS
• High: average 17 FPS
• Ultra: average 16 FPS

The Medium preset is the only one for which minimum and maximum FPS values are provided, giving a sense of frame pacing. At 1080p Medium, the range is 32 to 43 FPS, a spread of 11 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the range narrows to 26 to 35 FPS, a spread of 9 FPS. At 4K Medium, the range is 19 to 26 FPS, a spread of 7 FPS. This narrowing range at higher resolutions indicates that the GPU becomes more consistently saturated, with less headroom for FPS spikes.

Comparing Low to Ultra at each resolution: at 1080p, the difference is 21 FPS (48 vs 27); at 1440p, the difference is 17 FPS (39 vs 22); at 4K, the difference is 13 FPS (29 vs 16). The shrinking delta between Low and Ultra as resolution increases suggests that at 4K, even Low settings are so demanding that the GPU cannot leverage the reduced quality to gain as much performance. The data also shows that High and Ultra are nearly identical in performance at every resolution, with a difference of only 1 FPS in all cases. This implies that the Ultra preset's additional effects (likely shadows, reflections, or terrain detail) are not the primary cost; instead, the base rendering load at High is already enough to push the GTX 1650 to its limits.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the only settings preset that yields a playable experience is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which averages 48 FPS. This is the sole configuration where the average frame rate approaches the 50-60 FPS range that most users would consider smooth for a flight simulator, which typically does not require the same high refresh rates as competitive shooters but benefits from stability. All other presets at 1080p fall below 40 FPS, which may introduce noticeable stutter in a game that relies on smooth camera panning across scenery.

For users willing to accept lower frame rates, 1440p Low at 39 FPS is the next best option, but it is a significant step down from 1080p Low. The gap between 1080p Low (48 FPS) and 1440p Low (39 FPS) is 9 FPS, which is substantial. At 4K, even Low settings (29 FPS) are below 30 FPS, which is generally considered the minimum for playable. The Medium preset at 1080p offers 37 FPS with a minimum of 32 FPS, which might be tolerable for some users who prioritize visual quality over smoothness, but the data shows that the step from Low to Medium costs 11 FPS at 1080p, which is a heavy price for moderate visual improvements.

The High and Ultra presets are not recommended at any resolution, as they all fall below 30 FPS, with the exception of 1080p High (28 FPS) and 1080p Ultra (27 FPS), which are only marginally better than 4K Low. Given that High and Ultra are nearly identical in performance (1 FPS difference), there is no reason to choose Ultra over High if you are trying to squeeze out a bit more visual fidelity at the same frame rate. However, the optimal choice based on the data is clear: 1080p Low provides the best balance of performance and usability, while 1440p Low is a secondary option for users with higher-resolution displays who can tolerate sub-40 FPS. Everything above Low settings at 1080p, or any setting at 1440p and above, results in average FPS below 40, which is likely to detract from the immersive experience that Microsoft Flight Simulator aims to deliver.