Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 lands in a very specific, challenging position. The data places this pairing at rank 2885 out of 2996 tested combos, meaning it outperforms only a small fraction of the systems we have on record. This is not a configuration built for high-fidelity flight; the measured frames per second across all resolutions and settings presets consistently fall below the thresholds for smooth, playable performance. The analysis below breaks down exactly where this combo stands, how it scales, and which component is the primary bottleneck.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2885 out of 2996 tested combinations places this system in the bottom 3.7% of all recorded pairings for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a decisive indicator that the user experience will be dominated by compromises, as the hardware simply does not have the headroom to handle the simulation's heavy rendering loads. The data shows that this rank is a product of both components being near the bottom of their respective performance distributions; the GPU sits at the 40th percentile among all graphics cards, while the CPU is much stronger, at the 90th percentile among all processors.

This disparity is crucial. The CPU is a high-end part by general compute standards, but the GPU is a low-end legacy card. In the context of this game, the pairing's overall rank is dragged down almost entirely by the graphics subsystem. The GPU's average benchmark score of 7472 places it in direct competition with integrated graphics solutions like the Intel UHD Graphics 750, which scores 7441, and the AMD Radeon R7 350, which scores 7425. The GTX 1650 is only 0.4% ahead of the UHD 750, a margin that is effectively negligible in real-world gaming. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310, is actually 1% faster on average, indicating that this GPU is at the very entry level of what can be considered a discrete solution.

On the other side, the CPU's average benchmark score of 48995 places it in a much more competitive field. It is a mere 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, while being 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600K. This shows that the processing power is not the primary limiting factor in this system. The bottleneck is clear: the GTX 1650 is holding back a capable CPU, resulting in a combo rank that reflects the weakest link in the chain.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured frame rates, the only viable path to a playable experience is to use the Low settings preset. The data shows that at 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 48 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that approaches a fluid frame rate. The Medium preset drops to 37 FPS, and High and Ultra fall to 28 and 27 FPS respectively, all of which are below the generally accepted threshold for smooth gameplay. The Low preset is not just a recommendation; it is a necessity for this hardware combination.

For users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, the Medium preset at 1080p offers a compromise, but the data indicates a significant cost. Moving from Low to Medium at 1080p results in an 11 FPS drop, which is a 23% reduction in performance. The High and Ultra presets are essentially unplayable, with average frame rates in the high 20s, which will feel stuttery and laggy in a flight simulator where smooth camera panning is essential. At higher resolutions, even the Low preset becomes a slideshow, so the recommendation is strictly for 1080p.

The measured FPS data for the Medium preset includes minimum and maximum values, which provide insight into stability. At 1080p Medium, the frame rate fluctuates between a minimum of 32 and a maximum of 43 FPS. This variance is substantial, and in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, where the view can change dramatically when flying over dense urban areas or complex terrain, these dips will be noticeable. Therefore, the Low preset is the only setting that offers both a high average and a reasonable expectation of consistency, making it the definitive choice for this combo.

Resolution Scaling

The data reveals a stark and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases, which strongly confirms that the GPU is the limiting component. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 48 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low, the average drops to 39 FPS, a 9 FPS or 18.75% decrease. Pushing to 4K Low results in an average of 29 FPS, which is another 10 FPS drop from 1440p, a 25.6% decrease from 1440p and a 39.6% decrease from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline is a classic sign of a GPU that is overwhelmed by the increasing pixel count.

This pattern is consistent across all settings presets. For instance, on the High preset, the system goes from 28 FPS at 1080p to 23 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 17 FPS at 4K. The absolute frame rate loss is similar at each step, but the percentage loss becomes more severe as the starting point gets lower. The 4K resolution is entirely out of the question for this hardware, with even the Low preset only mustering 29 FPS. The GPU's 4 GB of VRAM and 128.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth are simply insufficient for the texture and shading demands of 4K in this simulator.

The scaling behavior indicates that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck across these resolutions. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see similar frame rates at 1080p and 1440p, as the CPU workload would remain constant while the GPU workload increased. Instead, the frame rates plummet with each resolution increase, proving that the GTX 1650's fill rate and pixel throughput are the constraining factors. The CPU, with its high 90th percentile ranking, has ample headroom to feed the GPU, but the GPU cannot process the data fast enough to maintain higher frame rates.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete measured FPS dataset provides a clear picture of the system's performance envelope. At 1920x1080, the Low preset yields an average of 48 FPS, which is the peak performance for this combo. The Medium preset delivers 37 FPS, with a minimum of 32 and a maximum of 43 FPS. The High preset drops to 28 FPS, and the Ultra preset is only marginally worse at 27 FPS. This shows that the performance ceiling is low, and the gap between Low and Ultra is a 21 FPS difference, representing a 44% performance hit for higher visual quality.

At 2560x1440, the frame rates become more constrained. The Low preset averages 39 FPS, which is playable but not ideal. The Medium preset averages 30 FPS, with a minimum of 26 and a maximum of 35 FPS. The High preset drops to 23 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls to 22 FPS. None of these 1440p settings offer a smooth experience, and the data suggests that users should avoid this resolution unless they are willing to accept significant stuttering. The jump from 1080p to 1440p costs an average of 9 FPS on the Low preset, a substantial loss.

At 3840x2160, the system is clearly out of its depth. The Low preset averages 29 FPS, which is the best possible result at this resolution. The Medium preset averages 22 FPS, with a minimum of 19 and a maximum of 26 FPS. The High preset averages 17 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 16 FPS. These numbers are all well below playable thresholds, making 4K a non-viable option for this hardware. The data shows a consistent performance hierarchy across all resolutions, with Low being the fastest, followed by Medium, High, and Ultra, which is expected, but the absolute values are too low for a satisfactory experience anywhere except 1080p Low.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is unequivocally the bottleneck in this configuration. Its specifications paint a picture of a budget-oriented card from a previous generation. It features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. This is a severe limitation for modern games, which often require more than 4 GB of VRAM for high-resolution textures. The card's 896 shading units and 32 ROPs are also modest, resulting in a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s.

The benchmark data for the GPU is telling. Its Passmark G3D score is 7880, which places it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs. This is a low score, and it is reflected in the game's performance. The card's nearest rivals include the Intel UHD Graphics 750, which is an integrated solution, and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, a mobile part. This shows that the GTX 1650 is barely distinguishable from iGPUs in synthetic benchmarks, and in this game, it performs accordingly. The card's boost clock of 1665 MHz is not enough to compensate for its limited memory bandwidth and compute resources.

The GPU's DirectX 12 benchmark score of 35 is particularly low, and it is directly relevant to Microsoft Flight Simulator, which uses DirectX 12. This score indicates a fundamental weakness in handling the API's advanced rendering features. The card's support for DirectX 12_1 is present, but its execution is poor. The 4 GB VRAM is also a critical issue, as the game's high-resolution textures will easily exceed this capacity, leading to texture pop-in and severe frame rate drops. This GPU is simply not designed for the demands of a modern flight simulator at any resolution above 1080p with low settings.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is a high-performance processor that is severely underutilized in this pairing. It has 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. This is a modern architecture, built on a 3 nm process, and its benchmark scores reflect its strength. In Cinebench R23, it scores 32924 in multi-core and 4648 in single-core tests. These are excellent scores that place it in the top 10% of all CPUs, as indicated by its 90th percentile ranking.

The CPU's performance in the game is not the limiting factor. The data shows that the frame rates are consistently low across all settings, which is a clear sign of a GPU bottleneck. The CPU is likely waiting for the GPU to finish rendering frames, resulting in low GPU utilization and a high CPU idle time. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 and Intel Core i5-14600K, are all within a 1% margin of its average benchmark score, indicating that it is a top-tier part for general compute tasks.

However, in this specific game, the CPU's power is irrelevant because the GPU cannot keep up. The CPU's 24 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support provide ample bandwidth for game data, but the GPU's 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is a fraction of what the system memory can provide. This mismatch means the CPU is ready to send more data, but the GPU cannot accept it fast enough. The result is a system that is CPU-strong but GPU-weak, leading to the low combo rank observed in the data.

FAQ

Q: Can this combo run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p?

A: Yes, but only at the Low settings preset, which achieves an average of 48 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 37 FPS, and High and Ultra are below 30 FPS, which is not recommended.

Q: What is the best settings preset for this system?

A: The Low preset at 1920x1080 is the only configuration that provides a playable frame rate. All other presets and resolutions result in significantly lower performance.

Q: How much of a performance drop is there from 1080p to 4K?

A: On the Low preset, the average frame rate drops from 48 FPS at 1080p to 29 FPS at 4K, a 39.6% decrease. The drop is severe across all presets, making 4K non-viable.

Q: Is the CPU or the GPU the main bottleneck?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU is at the 90th percentile of performance, while the GPU is at the 40th percentile. The frame rates scale heavily with resolution, which is a classic sign of a GPU limitation.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in this game's context?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score is only 0.4% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 750, an integrated GPU. It is also 1% slower than the Intel Arc A310, showing it is at the very bottom of the discrete GPU market.

Q: What is the combo's overall rank among tested systems?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and GTX 1650 combination ranks 2885 out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 3.7% of all systems.