Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: Intel Core i5-13400F + AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT

The combination of the Intel Core i5-13400F and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT delivers a playable but compromised Microsoft Flight Simulator experience. At 1080p, the combo achieves 60 FPS on High settings and 106.2 FPS on Low, but 4K Ultra drops to 33.5 FPS, revealing a GPU-bound system that struggles with the game's most demanding presets. The combo ranks 1137th out of 1795 tested configurations, placing it in the lower-middle tier of the database.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: 1080p is the most consistent choice. The average FPS ranges from 106.2 on Low to 59 on Ultra, with Medium at 83.5 and High at 60. At 1440p, performance drops to 82 FPS on Low and 49.6 on Ultra, while 4K only exceeds 60 FPS on Low settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core i5-13400F scores 25,236 in average benchmark score, sitting within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25,365) and 0.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9474F (25,103). Its closest rival, the Intel Core i7-13620H, scores 25,201, a 0.1% difference.

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile?

A: The RX 6650 XT places in the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29,024. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, scores 29,011, a 0% delta, while the Intel Arc A370M trails by 0.5%.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck at 4K?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. At 4K, dropping from Ultra (33.5 FPS) to Low (60.2 FPS) nearly doubles performance, while the CPU's 10 cores and 16 threads remain ample for the workload. The GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus contribute to this constraint.

Q: What settings preset gives the smoothest experience at 1440p?

A: Medium settings at 1440p deliver 64.7 FPS, which is the only preset above 60 FPS besides Low (82 FPS). High and Ultra both hover near 49 FPS, making Medium the practical choice for a 60 FPS target.

Q: How does this combo rank overall in the database?

A: The combo ranks 1137th out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all configs. This is a mid-pack result, reflecting the GPU's 72nd percentile versus the CPU's 82nd percentile.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is the primary performance driver in this pairing. With 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivering 280.3 GB/s bandwidth, the GPU's memory subsystem is modest for a flight simulator that loads vast scenery tiles. The 2048 shading units and 64 ROPs operate at a base clock of 2055 MHz and boost to 2635 MHz, with a game clock of 2410 MHz. This allows 10.79 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which the data shows is sufficient for 1080p Medium (83.5 FPS) but insufficient for 4K Ultra (33.5 FPS).

The GPU's memory bandwidth becomes a clear constraint at higher resolutions. At 4K, the average FPS drops from 60.2 on Low to 47 on Medium, a 21.9% reduction, then further to 37.1 on High and 33.5 on Ultra. This scaling pattern indicates that the 8 GB VRAM capacity and 280.3 GB/s bandwidth are saturated as texture detail and draw distances increase. The GPU's 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs aligns with these results: it is a capable mid-range card, but Microsoft Flight Simulator's heavy asset streaming demands more than this memory configuration can sustain at high resolutions.

The GPU also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which the game can leverage, but benchmark results show the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1859 and PassMark DirectX 12 score of 62. These figures are modest, confirming that the card's rasterization performance, not its feature set, dictates the frame rates observed.

Resolution Scaling

Performance scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a steep GPU-bound curve. At High settings, the average FPS drops from 60 at 1080p to 49.3 at 1440p (17.8% reduction) and then to 37.1 at 4K (38.2% reduction from 1080p). The drop from 1440p to 4K is 24.7%, which is larger than the 1080p-to-1440p drop, indicating that pixel count increasingly overwhelms the GPU.

Low settings show a similar pattern: 106.2 FPS at 1080p, 82 at 1440p (22.8% reduction), and 60.2 at 4K (43.3% reduction). The fact that 4K Low (60.2 FPS) still nearly matches 1080p High (60 FPS) suggests the GPU's raw throughput, not the CPU, is the limiting factor. The CPU's 10 cores and 16 threads, running at a 2.50 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost, are not the bottleneck here; if they were, we would see smaller FPS differences across resolutions.

The scaling also indicates that the game's settings have a compounding effect with resolution. At 1080p, Ultra (59 FPS) is nearly identical to High (60 FPS), but at 4K, Ultra (33.5 FPS) is 9.7% slower than High (37.1 FPS). This suggests that higher resolutions amplify the cost of Ultra-level effects, likely due to VRAM pressure and shader complexity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1080p, the combo delivers its strongest results. Low settings produce 106.2 FPS, Medium drops to 83.5 FPS, High settles at 60 FPS, and Ultra manages 59 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is just 1 FPS, making Ultra a nearly free upgrade at this resolution.

At 1440p, performance becomes more variable. Low settings achieve 82 FPS, Medium drops to 64.7 FPS, High falls to 49.3 FPS, and Ultra reaches 49.6 FPS. Notably, Ultra (49.6 FPS) slightly outperforms High (49.3 FPS), a statistical tie that suggests the settings presets have overlapping GPU workloads at this resolution.

At 4K, the GPU's limitations become severe. Low settings yield 60.2 FPS, Medium drops to 47 FPS, High falls to 37.1 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 33.5 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is the only sub-35 FPS measurement in the entire dataset, and even 4K High fails to maintain a consistent 40 FPS. The 4K Low result is the only 4K preset that exceeds 60 FPS, and it does so barely.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 1137th out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all configurations. This is a below-average result for a system with a CPU that ranks in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. The discrepancy highlights the GPU's 72nd percentile ranking as the limiting factor.

The CPU's nearest rivals illustrate its strength: the Intel Core i7-13620H scores 25,201 (0.1% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D scores 25,365 (0.5% faster), and the AMD EPYC 9474F scores 25,103 (0.5% slower). The CPU's 3DMark max-thread score of 7,307 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21,279 confirm strong multi-threaded performance, but this does not translate to higher FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator because the GPU is the bottleneck.

The GPU's nearest rivals show similar performance: the RX 6800M scores 29,011 (0% delta), the RX 470 scores 28,996 (0.1% slower), and the Arc A370M scores 29,175 (0.5% faster). This clustering means the RX 6650 XT is firmly in a competitive tier, but that tier is simply not fast enough for this game's high-end presets.

Settings Recommendations

For a 60 FPS target, the data supports specific choices per resolution. At 1080p, High settings (60 FPS) are the best balance, as Ultra (59 FPS) offers no meaningful improvement. Players wanting a higher frame rate can drop to Medium (83.5 FPS) for a 39% increase.

At 1440p, Medium settings (64.7 FPS) are the only preset above 60 FPS besides Low (82 FPS). High (49.3 FPS) and Ultra (49.6 FPS) both fall short, so Medium is the recommended preset for smooth gameplay at this resolution.

At 4K, Low settings (60.2 FPS) are the only viable option for 60 FPS. Medium (47 FPS) and High (37.1 FPS) are playable if the user accepts lower frame rates, but Ultra (33.5 FPS) should be avoided unless the user prioritizes visual fidelity over smoothness. The data shows that dropping from Ultra to Low at 4K nearly doubles performance (33.5 to 60.2 FPS), making Low the clear choice for playability.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-13400F provides 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. This Raptor Lake-S architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process, includes 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB L2 per core. The CPU's benchmark results are strong: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 21,279, Geekbench multi-core scores 10,971, and 3DMark max-thread scores 7,307.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 106.2 FPS, which is a solid CPU-driven result, but at 4K Ultra, the frame rate drops to 33.5 FPS, a GPU-bound outcome. The CPU's 82nd percentile ranking versus the GPU's 72nd percentile confirms that the processor is not the limiting component.

The CPU's single-thread performance, measured at 3,004 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 960 in 3DMark single-thread, is sufficient for the game's simulation logic. The 16 threads handle the game's background tasks, while the 4.60 GHz boost clock ensures responsive frame pacing. However, the data indicates that even a faster CPU would not improve FPS at 4K, as the GPU's 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus are the binding constraints. For users seeking higher frame rates at 4K, a GPU upgrade would yield more benefit than a CPU swap, but the current combo remains a capable 1080p performer.