Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 presents one of the most extreme CPU/GPU imbalances in the benchmark database. The data shows a processor that ranks in the 95th percentile against all CPUs, paired with a graphics card that sits in the 40th percentile against all GPUs. This combination ranks 3567th out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 4% of systems. The results are consistently GPU-bound, and the measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings reflect the GTX 1650's position as the limiting component.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is severe and tells a clear story about where the bottleneck sits. At Medium settings, the average frame rate falls from 37 FPS at 1920x1080 to 30 FPS at 2560x1440, then to 22 FPS at 3840x2160. That is a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K, which is a steep decline that indicates the GPU is saturated even at the lowest tested resolution. The scaling pattern is not linear; the jump from 1440p to 4K costs 8 FPS, while the jump from 1080p to 1440p costs 7 FPS, showing that the graphics card is running out of pixel-pushing capacity at every step.

At Low settings, the same pattern emerges but with higher absolute numbers. The average FPS is 48 at 1080p, dropping to 39 at 1440p and 29 at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is roughly 40%, identical to the Medium preset. This consistency suggests that resolution scaling is purely a function of the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth, not of any CPU-side limitation. The GTX 1650's 128.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply insufficient for the demands of 4K flight simulation, even at Low settings.

The High and Ultra presets tell a similar story but from a lower starting point. High settings produce 28 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings produce 27 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p, and 16 FPS at 4K. The gap between High and Ultra is remarkably small—just 1 FPS at every resolution—which indicates that the GPU is already maxed out before the additional Ultra effects are even applied. The data shows that this system cannot maintain playable frame rates at any resolution above 1080p, and even at 1080p, only the Low preset approaches 60 FPS territory.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is a 16-core, 32-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, built on TSMC's 4nm process. It has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, with 128 MB of L3 cache. Its benchmark scores are exceptional: a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42018 and a single-core score of 2259, alongside a Geekbench multicore score of 26736 and single-core score of 3064. The processor's percentile rank of 95 versus all CPUs confirms that it is among the fastest consumer chips available.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this CPU's role is largely theoretical because the GTX 1650 never allows it to stretch its legs. The measured FPS data shows no evidence of CPU bottlenecking: the frame rates scale smoothly with resolution changes, which is the hallmark of a GPU-limited scenario. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain flat across resolutions, but instead we see the 40% drop from 1080p to 4K described earlier. The CPU's 3DMark scores—16374 for 16 threads and 1292 for single-thread—suggest it could handle far higher frame rates if paired with a more capable GPU.

The nearest rivals to this CPU in the benchmark database are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, the AMD EPYC 8224P, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. The 9950X3D is 0.1% ahead of the two Ryzen 7 PRO parts and 0.3% ahead of the EPYC, while sitting 0.4% above the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. These deltas are negligible, meaning that any of these CPUs would perform identically in this game when paired with a GTX 1650. The CPU's 170W TDP and dual-channel DDR5 memory support at 89.6 GB/s bandwidth are more than adequate for flight simulation, but none of that matters when the GPU delivers less than 50 FPS at any settings.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture part built on TSMC's 12nm process, with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. Its memory bandwidth is 128.1 GB/s, and it operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The GPU has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, delivering 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its benchmark scores are modest: a PassMark G3D score of 7880 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305. The GPU's percentile rank is 40, placing it in the lower half of all graphics cards.

This GPU is the clear bottleneck in every measured configuration. The data shows that increasing settings from Low to Ultra at any resolution yields only a modest frame rate penalty—at 1080p, Low produces 48 FPS while Ultra produces 27 FPS, a 21 FPS spread. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM is likely a contributing factor, as Microsoft Flight Simulator at higher presets and resolutions will exceed that capacity, causing texture thrashing and reduced frame rates. The GPU's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% behind), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% behind), while the Intel Arc A310 is 1% ahead. These comparisons place the GTX 1650 in the entry-level tier, which is consistent with its measured performance.

The GPU's 75W TDP and lack of power connectors make it a low-power part, but that does not compensate for its limited compute resources. 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 dense scenery. The GPU's PassMark DirectX 12 score of 35 and DirectX 11 score of 58 indicate that it struggles with modern API workloads, which further explains the low frame rates across all settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces an average of 48 FPS on Low settings, 37 FPS on Medium, 28 FPS on High, and 27 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset has a minimum of 32 FPS and a maximum of 43 FPS, showing some frame time variance but nothing catastrophic. Low is the only preset that approaches a smooth experience, and even then, 48 FPS is below the 60 FPS target that many flight sim enthusiasts prefer. High and Ultra are nearly identical, which suggests that the GPU is already saturated at High and the Ultra preset adds effects that barely impact the already-strained renderer.

At 2560x1440, the average FPS drops to 39 on Low, 30 on Medium, 23 on High, and 22 on Ultra. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 26 FPS and a maximum of 35 FPS. This resolution is playable only on Low, and even then, 39 FPS is marginal for a flight simulator where smooth panning is important. The gap between Low and Medium is 9 FPS, while the gap between High and Ultra is just 1 FPS, reinforcing the notion that the GPU is the limiting factor. No settings combination at 1440p delivers a consistently smooth experience.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. Low settings produce an average of 29 FPS, Medium drops to 22 FPS, High falls to 17 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 16 FPS. The Medium preset has a minimum of 19 FPS and a maximum of 26 FPS. These numbers are below the threshold for comfortable gameplay, and even the Low preset at 29 FPS will feel sluggish. The data indicates that 4K is not a viable option for this combination, regardless of settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 3567 out of 3714 tested combinations places this system in the bottom 4% of all tested configurations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's limitations, as the CPU's percentile rank of 95 would otherwise place it near the top. The data shows that pairing a top-tier CPU with an entry-level GPU yields worse results than a balanced mid-range setup, because the game's frame rate is entirely dependent on the GPU's ability to render frames.

The delta between this combo's rank and its components' individual ranks is stark. The CPU is in the 95th percentile, but the combo is in the 4th percentile. This means that 96% of tested combos outperform this system, even though the CPU is faster than 95% of all processors. The GPU's 40th percentile rank is the anchor, and the combination cannot escape that gravity. In practical terms, this combo is suitable for low-resolution, low-settings play, but it leaves the CPU's potential almost entirely untapped.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured data, the only sensible configuration for this system is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which produces an average of 48 FPS. This is the highest average FPS across all measured rows and is the only setting that approaches smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 37 FPS, which is a noticeable drop and may introduce stutter during complex scenery loads, especially given the Medium minimum of 32 FPS. High and Ultra at 1080p are not recommended, as they produce 28 and 27 FPS respectively—essentially the same performance with no visual benefit.

At 1440p, Low settings produce 39 FPS, but this is still below the 1080p Low result and offers no advantage for a system that is already GPU-bound. The 4K resolution is not viable, as even Low settings produce only 29 FPS. The data suggests that users should prioritize resolution over settings quality: dropping to 1080p Low provides the best frame rate, while any attempt to raise settings or resolution results in a disproportionate FPS penalty. For a playable experience, stick to 1080p and Low, and consider reducing in-game render scaling if the option exists, though that is outside the measured data. The GTX 1650 simply does not have the compute resources to handle higher presets, and the CPU's power cannot compensate for that deficit.