Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding flight simulation title that stresses both the CPU and GPU heavily. For the combination of the Intel Core i5-9400 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, the measured data reveals a system that is firmly positioned at the lower end of the performance spectrum, ranking 1725 out of 1795 tested combinations. The benchmark results indicate that playable frame rates are achievable, but only by making significant compromises on visual fidelity and resolution. The data shows a clear hierarchy of performance across settings and resolutions, with the system struggling to maintain fluid motion at higher presets and resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The measured frame rates across all resolutions and presets provide a clear picture of what this hardware combination can deliver. At 1920x1080, the most common target resolution, the system achieves an average of 46.5 FPS on the Low preset, which is the only configuration that breaks the 40 FPS threshold. This is the only setting that approaches a smooth experience for a flight simulator, where consistent frame pacing is critical for a satisfying experience. The Low preset is the recommended starting point for users prioritizing playability over visual quality.

Moving up the preset ladder at 1080p yields diminishing returns. The Medium preset drops to 36.8 FPS, while the High preset falls to 30.8 FPS. The Ultra preset, at 28.1 FPS, is marginally better than the High preset's 30.8 FPS but still below the 30 FPS baseline often considered the minimum for playable simulation. The data suggests that Medium at 1080p is a viable alternative for users who want better visual quality, but they must accept a roughly 21% reduction in average frame rate compared to Low. However, for a stable experience, Low remains the best choice.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more challenging. The Low preset delivers 36.6 FPS, which is still playable, but the Medium preset drops to 32.5 FPS. The High preset falls to 20.2 FPS, and Ultra is at 22.6 FPS. The data indicates that 1440p is only feasible with the Low preset, and even then, the frame rate is lower than what is achievable at 1080p on the same preset. For 3840x2160, all presets result in sub-30 FPS performance, with the Low preset at 25.6 FPS being the best option, though it is still not ideal for a simulation game requiring precise control. The recommendation is clear: use the Low preset at 1080p for the best balance of frame rate and playability, or Medium at 1080p if visual fidelity is more important than a higher frame rate.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-9400 is a 6-core, 6-thread processor based on the Coffee Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The benchmark results for this CPU show a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 7969 and a single-core score of 1125, placing it at the 50th percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 2305 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i3-10305 with a score of 2300 and the Intel Xeon E-2134 at 2295, with delta percentage differences of only 0.2% and 0.4% respectively. This indicates that the CPU's raw compute capability is in line with other mid-range desktop processors from its era.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU is responsible for simulating the physics, weather systems, and AI traffic, making it a critical component. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p with the Low preset, the system reaches 46.5 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded. This suggests that at lower settings and resolutions, the CPU is able to feed the GPU enough data to achieve reasonable performance. However, the single-core performance, as measured by the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1125, is a limiting factor for a game that is heavily reliant on a single main thread. The data implies that the CPU's 6 threads and 9 MB of shared L3 cache are sufficient for the game's computational load, but the lack of hyper-threading may cause occasional stutters when the simulation complexity increases.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent when comparing the 1080p Low and Medium presets. The drop from 46.5 FPS to 36.8 FPS indicates that the CPU is not the sole bottleneck, as the GPU is also being taxed more heavily at Medium. However, at 4K with the Ultra preset, the frame rate drops to 15.9 FPS, which is lower than the 1080p Ultra result of 28.1 FPS. This significant drop highlights that the GPU becomes the primary limiting factor at higher resolutions, while the CPU remains a secondary constraint. The benchmark results indicate that the i5-9400 is a capable processor for this game at lower settings, but its performance ceiling is reached when combined with a modest GPU like the GTX 1650.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. Its base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and it has 896 shading units. The GPU's average benchmark score is 8713, placing it at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile with a score of 8746 (a delta of -0.4%) and the AMD Radeon 550X with a score of 8749 (also a delta of -0.4%). This indicates that the GTX 1650's raw performance is closely matched to these other entry-level cards, but it is not a high-end part.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is to render the complex scenery, terrain, and lighting effects. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a significant limitation, especially at higher resolutions and settings. The measured data shows that at 1080p, the GPU can handle the Low preset at 46.5 FPS, but the frame rate drops to 36.8 FPS at Medium and 30.8 FPS at High. This progressive decline indicates that the GPU is becoming increasingly burdened as the visual load increases. At 1440p, the Low preset yields 36.6 FPS, which is a modest drop from 1080p, but the High preset falls to 20.2 FPS, showing a sharp decline that suggests the GPU is running out of memory bandwidth and VRAM capacity.

The 4K results are particularly revealing. At 4K with the Low preset, the frame rate is 25.6 FPS, which is a 45% drop from the 1080p Low result of 46.5 FPS. This substantial reduction highlights that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at this resolution. The GTX 1650's memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s is insufficient to handle the data throughput required for 4K rendering, and the 4 GB VRAM is likely to be exceeded by the game's textures at higher presets. The data shows that the GPU's performance scales poorly with increasing resolution, and it is clear that this card is best suited for 1080p gaming with lower settings. The launch MSRP of the GTX 1650 is 149 USD, which reflects its entry-level positioning.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for this CPU and GPU combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The Low preset at 1920x1080 provides the highest average frame rate of 46.5 FPS, making it the best option for a smooth experience. The Medium preset at 1080p offers a balance with 36.8 FPS, but at a significant frame rate cost.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in terms of benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400 has an average benchmark score of 2305, which is nearly identical to the Intel Core i3-10305 (2300) and the Intel Core i3-1125G4 (2299), with delta percentages of 0.2% and 0.2% respectively. It is slightly behind the Intel Core i7-8809G, which scores 2319.

Q: Is the GTX 1650 capable of running the game at 4K resolution?

A: No. The benchmark data shows that at 3840x2160, even the Low preset only achieves 25.6 FPS, and the Ultra preset drops to 15.9 FPS. These frame rates are not playable for a flight simulator.

Q: What is the primary limiting component at 1440p resolution?

A: The data shows a significant frame rate drop from the Low preset at 1080p (46.5 FPS) to the Low preset at 1440p (36.6 FPS), indicating that the GPU is the main bottleneck at this resolution, as the CPU's performance remains relatively constant.

Q: How much faster is the Low preset compared to the Ultra preset at 1080p?

A: The Low preset at 1080p achieves an average of 46.5 FPS, while the Ultra preset achieves 28.1 FPS. This represents a 65% increase in frame rate when using the Low preset, which is a substantial gain.

Q: Does the GPU's performance rank it as a high-end or entry-level part?

A: The GPU has an average benchmark score of 8713 and is at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8761) and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8671), indicating it is an entry-level to mid-range part.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data across the three resolutions provides a clear picture of how the system scales with increasing pixel counts. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 46.5 FPS, which is the baseline for performance. Stepping up to 1440p at the same Low preset reduces the average frame rate to 36.6 FPS, a 21% drop. Going further to 4K at Low settings brings the frame rate down to 25.6 FPS, which is a 45% reduction from the 1080p result. This scaling pattern is consistent across all presets, with the Medium preset dropping from 36.8 FPS at 1080p to 32.5 FPS at 1440p and then to 23.7 FPS at 4K.

This scaling behavior indicates that the GPU is the dominant limiting factor as resolution increases. The CPU's performance, as measured by its benchmark scores, does not change with resolution, so the frame rate drops are directly attributable to the GPU's workload. The GTX 1650 has a limited memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s and only 4 GB of VRAM, which are insufficient for the high-resolution textures and geometry used in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows that the frame rate drop from 1080p to 1440p is more pronounced than the drop from 1440p to 4K for the High and Ultra presets, suggesting that the GPU is struggling to maintain performance even at moderate resolutions.

The Ultra preset at 4K yields a meager 15.9 FPS, which is nearly unplayable. This represents a 44% drop from the 1080p Ultra result of 28.1 FPS. The fact that the frame rate does not scale linearly with resolution indicates that other factors, such as VRAM capacity and memory bandwidth, are causing the GPU to become saturated. The system is clearly limited by the GPU at higher resolutions, and the CPU is not the primary bottleneck. For users who wish to play at 1440p or 4K, the data suggests that the GTX 1650 is not a viable option, and a more powerful GPU would be required to achieve playable frame rates. The results confirm that this hardware combination is best suited for 1080p gaming with lower settings.