Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: What is the average FPS for this combo at 1080p with Low settings?

A: The measured average is 46.5 FPS at 1920x1080 on Low settings. This is the highest frame rate recorded across all tested configurations for this pair.

Q: How does the Intel Core i5-10400F compare to its nearest rival in CPU benchmarks?

A: The CPU’s average benchmark score is 14,168. Its closest rival, the AMD EPYC 7552, scores 14,115, which puts the i5-10400F just 0.4% ahead. The Intel Core i5-8500 trails by 1.1% with a score of 14,332.

Q: What is the GPU’s VRAM capacity and memory type?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. This is a crucial specification for understanding its performance in a flight simulator that loads large textures.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested combinations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 1752 out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 2.4% of all recorded system pairings for this title.

Q: Which settings preset yields the highest FPS at 2560x1440?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers an average of 39.0 FPS. This is substantially higher than Medium (30.2 FPS) and more than double the Ultra preset’s 19.6 FPS.

Q: What is the GPU’s launch MSRP?

A: The launch MSRP for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is 149 USD.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture with a TU117 chip, manufactured on a 12 nm process by TSMC. It contains 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. The GPU operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, with memory running at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory is a defining constraint for Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the game streams detailed terrain and aircraft models that can pressure VRAM capacity at higher settings.

The GPU’s raw compute capability is 2.984 TFLOPS for FP32 operations. This translates into the measured frame rates: at 1080p Low, the system averages 46.5 FPS, but this drops precipitously as settings increase. The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p is 11.1 FPS (46.5 to 35.4), and from Medium to High another 10.0 FPS drop occurs (35.4 to 25.4). The Ultra preset yields 25.5 FPS, essentially identical to High, suggesting the card hits a computational ceiling beyond High settings.

The GPU’s average benchmark score is 8,713, placing it at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8,746, a mere 0.4% difference. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 8,761, 0.5% higher. These benchmark deltas indicate the GTX 1650 sits in a tightly contested performance band, yet in this specific title, its 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth become limiting factors for texture-heavy scenes.

Resolution Scaling

The measured data reveals a clear pattern of frame rate degradation as resolution climbs. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 46.5 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 39.0 FPS, a reduction of 7.5 FPS (16.1%). At 4K Low, the average falls to 26.3 FPS, which is 43.4% lower than the 1080p result. This scaling suggests that at Low settings, the GPU is still the primary bottleneck, as pixel count directly impacts performance.

For Medium settings, the progression is 35.4 FPS (1080p) → 30.2 FPS (1440p) → 21.3 FPS (4K). The 4K result is 39.8% below the 1080p figure. High settings show 25.4 FPS at 1080p, 23.1 FPS at 1440p, and 18.6 FPS at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K here is 26.8%, which is smaller than the Low or Medium presets. Ultra settings behave similarly: 25.5 FPS (1080p), 19.6 FPS (1440p), and 18.7 FPS (4K), a 26.7% decline from 1080p to 4K.

The narrowing percentage drops at higher settings indicate that the CPU begins to share the load. The Intel Core i5-10400F, with 6 cores and 12 threads boosting to 4.30 GHz, provides adequate single-thread throughput (Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,453), but the game’s simulation logic can still create CPU-side limits. At 4K Ultra, the 18.7 FPS result is nearly identical to 4K High (18.6 FPS), suggesting the GPU is fully saturated and the resolution increase no longer meaningfully changes the frame rate.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1752 out of 1795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom percentile of all systems tested for this game. To contextualize, this means only 43 combinations performed worse, while 1,751 systems delivered higher average frame rates. The rank is a stark indicator that this pairing is not suited for the game’s demanding rendering workload.

The CPU’s individual standing is stronger than the combo rank suggests. The Intel Core i5-10400F sits at the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 14,168. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD EPYC 7552 (14,115, +0.4% for the Intel), the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C (14,277, 0.8% ahead of the Intel), and the Intel Core i5-8500 (14,332, 1.1% ahead). This indicates the processor is a mid-range performer, capable of feeding the GPU in less demanding scenarios.

The GPU, by contrast, ranks at the 43rd percentile with an average score of 8,713. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,671, 0.5% slower) and the AMD Radeon 550X (8,749, 0.4% faster). The GPU’s below-average standing relative to all GPUs is the primary drag on the combo’s overall rank. The combination of a 73rd-percentile CPU with a 43rd-percentile GPU yields a result that is near the very bottom of the tested pool, underscoring how heavily this game penalizes the GTX 1650’s modest VRAM and bandwidth.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the Low preset is the only configuration that approaches playable frame rates. At 1080p Low, the average is 46.5 FPS. This is the sole measured result above 40 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 35.4 FPS, which is noticeably lower but still above 30 FPS. High and Ultra at 1080p both hover around 25 FPS, which is likely too stutter-prone for a smooth flight experience.

At 1440p, only Low (39.0 FPS) exceeds 30 FPS. Medium drops to 30.2 FPS, and High falls to 23.1 FPS. At 4K, all settings produce averages below 27 FPS, with Low being the best at 26.3 FPS. The data strongly suggests that for any playable session, the user should select 1080p with Low settings. If the user prioritizes visual fidelity over smoothness, 1080p Medium at 35.4 FPS is the next viable step.

The gap between High and Ultra is minimal across all resolutions: at 1080p, the difference is 0.1 FPS (25.4 vs 25.5); at 1440p, it is 3.5 FPS (23.1 vs 19.6); at 4K, it is 0.1 FPS (18.6 vs 18.7). This indicates the Ultra preset offers negligible performance cost over High, so users who choose High might as well select Ultra for the same frame rate. However, given the low absolute numbers, the recommendation is clear: 1080p Low for a playable experience, with 1080p Medium as a compromise for better visuals.

Measured FPS Breakdown

1920x1080: The best result is Low at 46.5 FPS. Medium follows at 35.4 FPS, a drop of 11.1 FPS. High yields 25.4 FPS, and Ultra is nearly identical at 25.5 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 21.0 FPS, showing a wide performance range across presets.

2560x1440: Low averages 39.0 FPS, which is 7.5 FPS lower than the same preset at 1080p. Medium delivers 30.2 FPS, a 9.1 FPS improvement over High’s 23.1 FPS. Ultra drops to 19.6 FPS, the lowest 1440p result. The difference between Low and Ultra at this resolution is 19.4 FPS.

3840x2160: Low is the only preset above 25 FPS, averaging 26.3 FPS. Medium falls to 21.3 FPS, while High and Ultra are nearly tied at 18.6 and 18.7 FPS, respectively. The total spread from Low to Ultra here is 7.6 FPS, the narrowest of all resolutions, indicating the GPU is the hard limiter at 4K.

Cross-resolution analysis shows that Low settings scale most predictably with resolution: 46.5 → 39.0 → 26.3 FPS. Medium scales as 35.4 → 30.2 → 21.3 FPS. High scales as 25.4 → 23.1 → 18.6 FPS, and Ultra scales as 25.5 → 19.6 → 18.7 FPS. The 1080p results are the only ones where any preset exceeds 40 FPS, and the 4K results are uniformly below 27 FPS regardless of settings. The data indicates that this combo is best used at 1080p with Low or Medium settings, and that any attempt to run at 4K will result in sub-30 FPS performance across the board.