Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination reveals a steep and consistent performance cliff as resolution climbs. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 48 FPS. Stepping up to 1440p Low drops that to 39 FPS, and at 4K Low the average falls to 29 FPS. The pattern is equally pronounced at Medium settings: 37 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p, and 22 FPS at 4K. High settings show 28 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings follow the same slope, with 27, 22, and 16 FPS across the three resolutions.

The scaling pattern is informative. From 1080p to 4K at Low settings, the frame rate drops by roughly 40% — from 48 to 29 FPS. At Medium, the drop is from 37 to 22 FPS, a reduction of about 40% as well. This consistency across settings suggests that pixel throughput is the dominant constraint. The GTX 1650's 128-bit memory bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, paired with 4 GB of GDDR5, appear to be the limiting factors. When resolution increases, the GPU must process and store far more pixel data, and this card's modest memory subsystem cannot keep pace.

However, the data also hints at a secondary bottleneck. At 1080p, the gap between Low (48 FPS) and Ultra (27 FPS) is 21 FPS, while at 4K the gap is only 13 FPS (29 to 16). This narrowing spread at higher resolutions indicates that the CPU is still contributing to performance limits at lower resolutions. The Core Ultra 5 225, with its 10 cores and 10 threads, shows strong single-thread capability in synthetic benchmarks — a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3655 — but Microsoft Flight Simulator's simulation logic can be demanding. The data suggests that at 1080p, the CPU is holding the combo back from reaching higher frame rates, while at 4K, the GPU's pixel-pushing limits dominate.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is an end-of-life product from the GeForce 16-series, built on the Turing architecture with a 12 nm process. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus yields 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The card's base clock runs at 1485 MHz, boosting to 1665 MHz. These specifications place it in the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals in synthetic tests include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% faster), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% faster), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% faster), while the Intel Arc A310 trails by 1%.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the VRAM capacity is a critical concern. The game is known for loading large textures and terrain data, and 4 GB is a minimal allocation. The measured FPS data shows that even at 1080p Low, the combo only achieves 48 FPS — a modest result that suggests the GPU is already struggling with the game's rendering demands. The 4K Medium measurement includes a min FPS of 19 and max of 26, indicating significant frame time variance as the GPU swaps texture data. The lack of ray tracing cores and tensor cores (both listed as null in the spec) further limits the card's ability to handle advanced visual effects, though Microsoft Flight Simulator does not heavily rely on those features.

The GTX 1650's compute capabilities are also modest: 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 896 shading units. These numbers translate to a card that can handle the game at low-to-medium settings but will falter when asked for higher fidelity. The data shows that Ultra settings at any resolution produce frame rates in the teens — 16 FPS at 4K, 22 FPS at 1440p, and 27 FPS at 1080p — all of which fall below playable thresholds for a flight simulator that requires smooth camera panning and instrument readability.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The best measured result is 48 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that exceeds 40 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is 7472, placing it slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M by 0.3%, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 by 0.4%, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 by 0.6%. The Intel Arc A310 is 1% slower.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the primary bottleneck at 1080p?

A: The data suggests a mixed scenario. At 1080p Low, the combo reaches 48 FPS, but the frame rate drops sharply when settings increase — to 37 FPS at Medium and 28 FPS at High. This larger spread at lower resolution indicates the CPU (with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25891) has some headroom, but the GPU's limits become apparent as graphical load rises.

Q: What are the minimum FPS readings for Medium settings?

A: At 4K Medium, the min FPS is 19. At 1440p Medium, it's 26. At 1080p Medium, it's 32. These are the only settings with recorded min FPS values in the measured data.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combo ranks 2885 out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 4% of all tested systems for this game.

Q: Does the CPU's 10-core configuration help in this game?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 cores and 10 threads, with a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. While this provides solid multi-threaded performance — a PassMark multithread score of 30459 — Microsoft Flight Simulator's frame rates at 1080p Low (48 FPS) suggest the GPU is still the limiting factor, as the CPU's single-thread score (3655 in Cinebench R23) is competitive.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 2885 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the system in the bottom 3.7% of all tested configurations, a position that reflects the GPU's age and limited memory bandwidth rather than any deficiency in the CPU. The Core Ultra 5 225, by contrast, ranks in the 85th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 36938 and nearest rivals like the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (0% delta), AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D (-0.2%), and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (-0.4%).

The ranking disparity between the components is stark. The CPU is a modern, high-performing part — released in January 2025 with a 3 nm process from TSMC and 17,800 million transistors — while the GPU is a 2019-era product with a 12 nm process and 4,700 million transistors. The GPU's 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average score of 7472, drags the entire combo down to near-bottom placement in this game. This is a classic case of a strong processor being held back by a weak graphics card in a graphically intensive title.

The data implies that pairing this CPU with a more capable GPU would yield dramatically better results. The CPU's scores — such as 25891 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 302811 in PassMark data compression — indicate it can feed a much faster graphics card. But as configured, the GTX 1650's 4 GB VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth cap the system's performance in a game that demands high texture throughput.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a 10-core, 10-thread processor from the Arrow Lake-S architecture, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. Its base clock is 3.30 GHz, boosting to 4.90 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU posts strong numbers: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25891 and a single-core score of 3655. Its PassMark single-thread score is 4412, and its multithread score is 30459. These results place it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 36938. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (matching at 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D (0.2% slower).

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation's complex flight dynamics, weather systems, and AI traffic. The measured FPS data shows that at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 48 FPS — a figure that might be higher if the GPU weren't the bottleneck. The fact that the frame rate drops to 37 FPS at Medium and 28 FPS at High at the same resolution indicates that the GPU's rendering load is the primary constraint, not the CPU. However, the CPU's 10 threads (not 20, as with hyperthreading) might limit performance in scenarios with heavy simulation logic. The data doesn't isolate CPU-bound scenarios, but the combination of a strong single-core score (3655 in Cinebench R23) and modest thread count suggests the CPU can hold its own in most situations.

The CPU's 20 MB of L3 cache is shared across all cores, which helps with data locality in a game that streams terrain tiles. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth is ample for feeding the GPU, but the GPU's 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is nearly the same — indicating that neither component has a significant memory advantage, and the GPU's smaller VRAM pool (4 GB) becomes the limiting factor.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides twelve data points across three resolutions and four settings. At 3840x2160 (4K), the results are as follows: Low settings yield 29 FPS, Medium yields 22 FPS (with min 19 and max 26), High yields 17 FPS, and Ultra yields 16 FPS. None of these are playable for a smooth flight experience, and the gap between Low and Ultra is only 13 FPS — a sign that the GPU is completely overwhelmed at this resolution.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the results improve but remain low: Low settings produce 39 FPS, Medium produces 30 FPS (min 26, max 35), High produces 23 FPS, and Ultra produces 22 FPS. The jump from 4K to 1440p provides a meaningful boost — 10 FPS at Low, 8 FPS at Medium, 6 FPS at High, and 6 FPS at Ultra. This indicates that the GPU's pixel processing capability is the key constraint, as reducing pixel count directly translates to higher frame rates.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the results are the best the combo can offer: Low settings achieve 48 FPS, Medium achieves 37 FPS (min 32, max 43), High achieves 28 FPS, and Ultra achieves 27 FPS. The 1080p Low result is the only configuration that approaches a smooth experience, but it's still below the 60 FPS threshold that many players prefer. The 1080p Medium result, with a min FPS of 32, shows playable performance with some stutter risk. The High and Ultra settings at 1080p both fall below 30 FPS, making them less desirable.

Across all resolutions, the Low-to-Medium gap is consistent: 11 FPS at 1080p (48 to 37), 9 FPS at 1440p (39 to 30), and 7 FPS at 4K (29 to 22). The Medium-to-High gap is also similar: 9 FPS at 1080p, 7 FPS at 1440p, and 5 FPS at 4K. The High-to-Ultra gap is minimal: 1 FPS at 1080p, 1 FPS at 1440p, and 1 FPS at 4K. This suggests that Ultra settings offer no meaningful benefit over High for this combo, while High provides a slight step down from Medium with diminishing returns.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this combo depend on the user's resolution and tolerance for frame rate dips. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 48 FPS — the highest measured result — and is the only setting that approaches fluid performance. However, the Medium preset at 37 FPS (min 32, max 43) offers a better visual experience with only an 11 FPS penalty. Given that the min FPS of 32 at Medium is still above 30, this is the recommended compromise for players who want reasonable visuals without sacrificing playability.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset (39 FPS) is the only setting that mitigates stutter, but even it falls below 40 FPS. The Medium preset at 30 FPS (min 26) introduces noticeable dips that could be problematic during fast maneuvers or when flying over dense terrain. For 1440p users, Low is the safest choice, though the overall experience will be marginal.

At 3840x2160, no setting is playable. The Low preset at 29 FPS is the best result, but it's below the 30 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for a playable flight sim. The Medium preset at 22 FPS (min 19) and High/Ultra at 17 and 16 FPS respectively are all too choppy for practical use. This combo is not suited for 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The data suggests that the High and Ultra presets are not worth selecting at any resolution. The difference between High and Medium is 9 FPS at 1080p, 7 FPS at 1440p, and 5 FPS at 4K — a modest gain for the visual upgrade. The Ultra preset's 1 FPS improvement over High is negligible, making it the least efficient setting. Players should prioritize the Low or Medium presets at 1080p, Low at 1440p, and avoid 4K entirely. The measured min FPS values at Medium settings (32 at 1080p, 26 at 1440p, 19 at 4K) highlight the risk of frame drops, reinforcing the recommendation to use lower presets for consistency.