Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the measured data for the Intel Core i5-12400F paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 places this combination in the 1696th position out of 1795 tested combos. This places it in the bottom 5.5% of all configurations, confirming that this is a hardware pairing built for entry-level 1080p play, not for high-fidelity immersion. The benchmark results show a system that is consistently GPU-bound, with the processor's solid multi-threaded capabilities (a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16518) never being the primary constraint at any tested resolution.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides a clear hierarchy for playable settings, with the primary goal being to maintain a fluid frame rate in a simulator where smoothness is critical for control. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 49 FPS, which is the only configuration that approaches a truly comfortable level for this genre. The Medium preset, averaging 39.4 FPS, is a viable compromise that offers a better balance of visual detail and responsiveness, but it sits below the 40 FPS threshold often preferred for flight simulators. The High preset drops to 30.7 FPS, and Ultra falls to 27.6 FPS, both of which are playable but will feel noticeably less smooth during dense scenery or rapid maneuvers.

For users with 1440p displays, the situation becomes more restrictive. The Low preset at 2560x1440 produces an average of 36.2 FPS, which is acceptable for a slower-paced sim, but the Medium preset drops to 29.9 FPS and High to 23.4 FPS, making them difficult to recommend for a consistent experience. The data suggests that the Low preset at 1440p is the highest resolution viable for this GPU, as moving to Medium yields a frame rate that is nearly 18% lower than the 1080p Low result. At 4K, all presets are effectively unplayable for a responsive experience, with the best case being the Low preset at 29 FPS and the Ultra preset at 18.9 FPS.

Therefore, the data strongly indicates the Low preset at 1920x1080 as the optimal experience, as it is the only combination that consistently exceeds 45 FPS. The Medium preset is the maximum visual quality setting that can be considered for general use, but only if the user accepts a frame rate that will fluctuate in the mid-to-high 30s.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is unequivocally the limiting factor in this configuration. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth are insufficient for the high-resolution texture loads of Microsoft Flight Simulator, and its 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is simply too low for this game's complex rendering. The GPU's percentile rank of 43 among all GPUs underscores its position as an entry-level part, and benchmark scores like the Passmark G3D score of 7880 further confirm its modest capabilities.

Looking at the measured FPS data, the GPU's workload is evident in the scaling between settings at a fixed resolution. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra results in a 43.7% drop in average frame rate (from 49 to 27.6 FPS). This is a massive performance hit that occurs because the GTX 1650's shading units (896) and texture mapping units (56) are overwhelmed by the increased geometric and shading complexity of higher presets. The GPU's boost clock of 1665 MHz is the maximum it can achieve, but it cannot compensate for the fundamental lack of compute throughput. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is also a critical issue; at higher presets, the game likely exceeds this limit, causing texture streaming and asset loading to become a bottleneck that further reduces frame rates beyond what the raw compute would suggest.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo's rank of 1696 out of 1795 tested combinations places it in the 5th percentile, a position that reflects the pairing of a modern, capable mid-range CPU with a dated, entry-level GPU. The Intel Core i5-12400F is a strong processor, with an average benchmark score of 19221 and a percentile rank of 77 against all CPUs. Its closest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-8700K (which scores 19210, a 0.1% difference) and the AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS (which scores 19364, a -0.7% difference), show that the CPU is performing at a level comparable to high-end desktop chips from previous generations.

However, this CPU performance is entirely wasted in this game. The measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low, the system achieves only 49 FPS, a figure that is far below what the i5-12400F is capable of driving. The bottleneck is so severe that the GPU's performance is the sole determinant of the final frame rate. This is a classic case of a severe imbalance; the combo rank is a reflection of the weakest link, and in this instance, the GTX 1650 is the weakest link by a substantial margin. The system's overall performance is dragged down to the level of the GPU, which, based on its nearest rivals (the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 with a 0.5% delta and the AMD Radeon 550X with a -0.4% delta), is a performance tier that is simply not suited for this simulator.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rate data, while lacking minimum and maximum values, provides a clear picture of average performance across a full matrix of settings and resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows:

• Low: 49.0 FPS
• Medium: 39.4 FPS
• High: 30.7 FPS
• Ultra: 27.6 FPS

At 2560x1440, the results are:

• Low: 36.2 FPS
• Medium: 29.9 FPS
• High: 23.4 FPS
• Ultra: 21.0 FPS

At 3840x2160, the results are:

• Low: 29.0 FPS
• Medium: 21.4 FPS
• High: 18.6 FPS
• Ultra: 18.9 FPS

These numbers illustrate a consistent pattern. The difference between 1080p and 1440p at the same settings is substantial, with the Low preset losing 26% of its performance (49 to 36.2 FPS) and the Ultra preset losing 24% (27.6 to 21.0 FPS). The jump to 4K is even more punishing, with the Low preset at 4K (29 FPS) performing 41% worse than the same preset at 1440p (36.2 FPS). It is notable that the High and Ultra presets at 4K produce nearly identical results (18.6 and 18.9 FPS), suggesting that the GPU has hit a hard computational ceiling where further increasing settings no longer changes the workload because the frame rate is already bound by the pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth.

Resolution Scaling

The data reveals a textbook example of a GPU-limited system where resolution scaling has a dramatic and predictable impact on frame rates. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 (a 1.78x increase in pixel count) results in an average performance drop of roughly 25-30% across all settings. This is a significant penalty, but it is expected when the GPU's pixel rate (53.28 GPixel/s) and memory bandwidth (128.1 GB/s) are being saturated.

The transition from 1440p to 4K (a 2.25x increase in pixel count) is where the GTX 1650 completely collapses. The performance drop is far more severe, with the Low preset falling by 20% and the Medium preset falling by 28.4%. This non-linear scaling indicates that the GPU is not just struggling with the pixel count, but is also running out of memory bandwidth and VRAM capacity. The fact that the High and Ultra presets at 4K both hover around 18-19 FPS suggests that the game has become entirely bound by the GPU's inability to process the required data, regardless of the visual complexity of the scene. The 4 GB VRAM is almost certainly exhausted, forcing constant data swaps that cripple the frame rate.

Ultimately, the scaling behavior confirms that the i5-12400F has ample headroom. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are more than sufficient for the simulation's physics and AI calculations; the frame rate is entirely determined by the GTX 1650's ability to render the scene. For users of this combo, the path to better performance lies solely in reducing resolution and settings, as the data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any point in this testing matrix.