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 this combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 in Microsoft Flight Simulator shows a steep and consistent performance decline as resolution increases, a pattern that points clearly to the GPU as the dominant constraint at higher settings. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo averages 48 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Low drops that to 39 FPS, a reduction of 9 frames. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls further to 29 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 1440p Low represents an 18.75% performance loss, while the jump from 1440p to 4K Low costs another 25.6%. Across the full 1080p-to-4K range at Low settings, the average frame rate drops by 19 FPS, or roughly 39.6% of the 1080p value.

The Medium preset tells a similar story but from a lower starting point. At 1080p Medium, the average is 37 FPS with a minimum of 32 FPS and a maximum of 43 FPS. At 1440p Medium, the average falls to 30 FPS, with min/max of 26 and 35 FPS. At 4K Medium, the average drops to 22 FPS, with min/max of 19 and 26 FPS. The delta between 1080p and 4K Medium is 15 FPS, a 40.5% reduction. High settings show the same pattern: 28 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings yield 27, 22, and 16 FPS respectively, with the 1080p-to-4K gap being 11 FPS.

The shape of these curves — nearly linear degradation across resolution steps — is characteristic of a system where the GPU's pixel throughput and memory bandwidth are saturated well before the CPU becomes a factor. The GTX 1650's 4 GB GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is the likely bottleneck, especially at 4K where the frame buffer demands exceed what this card can efficiently deliver. The fact that even at Low settings, 4K only achieves 29 FPS — below the 30 FPS threshold often considered the minimum for playable flight simulation — reinforces that the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU, with its high multithreaded throughput (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44,253) and 24 cores, is not the constraint here; the data shows that resolution scaling affects performance almost exactly as one would expect from a GPU-bound scenario.

# How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The measured combination of the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 2,885th out of 2,996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 3.7% of all system pairings in the database for this specific title. The rank is heavily influenced by the GPU's position in the overall hierarchy — the GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7,472. Its nearest rivals in the GPU benchmark data include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (avg score 7,447, delta of 0.3%), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (avg score 7,441, delta of 0.4%), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (avg score 7,425, delta of 0.6%). The only rival with a higher score is the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550, which is 1% ahead. This cluster of GPUs within a 1.6% performance band indicates that the GTX 1650 is functioning at a level consistent with entry-level integrated and low-end discrete graphics solutions, not modern gaming cards.

The CPU, in contrast, is a high-end part. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus ranks at the 96th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 93,785. Its nearest rivals are all server-class processors: the Intel Xeon 6520P at 93,786 (delta 0%), the AMD EPYC 4564P at 95,183 (delta -1.5%), the AMD EPYC 9175F at 95,615 (delta -1.9%), and the AMD EPYC 4565P at 95,764 (delta -2.1%). The fact that this CPU is within 2.1% of these enterprise parts in average benchmark score underscores that the processor is not the weak link in this pairing. The combination rank of 2,885 out of 2,996 thus reflects a severe imbalance: a top-tier CPU (96th percentile) paired with a bottom-half GPU (40th percentile). In Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title known for its heavy graphics load, the combo's rank is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU side of the equation.

# FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves at any resolution and settings combination?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 48, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings.

Q: Does the GTX 1650 have enough VRAM for 4K in this game?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. At 3840x2160 with Medium settings, the combo averages 22 FPS, and at Low settings it averages 29 FPS. These results suggest that the 4 GB frame buffer is a limiting factor, as even the lowest settings cannot push 4K past 30 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU's single-threaded performance compare to its multithreaded performance?

A: The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 2,439 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 44,253 in multi-core. The single-core score represents strong per-thread performance, which is relevant for flight simulators that often rely on a main simulation thread.

Q: What is the combo's rank out of all tested combinations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 2,885th out of 2,996 total tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: Is the GPU's performance closer to integrated graphics or discrete gaming cards?

A: The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7,472 is within 0.6% of the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441) and 1% below the Intel Arc A310 (7,550), placing it in a performance band that includes integrated solutions rather than dedicated gaming GPUs.

Q: What is the spread between minimum and maximum FPS at 1080p Medium?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the minimum FPS is 32, the maximum is 43, and the average is 37, giving a spread of 11 FPS.

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

At 1920x1080, the data shows a clear progression across settings. Low settings yield an average of 48 FPS with no recorded min/max values. Medium settings drop to 37 FPS average, with a minimum of 32 FPS and a maximum of 43 FPS. High settings average 28 FPS, and Ultra settings average 27 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 11 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 9 FPS, and High to Ultra is only 1 FPS. This compression at the top end suggests that beyond Medium, the GPU is already near its limits, and further quality increases yield diminishing returns.

At 2560x1440, the same settings ladder produces lower absolute numbers but a similar shape. Low averages 39 FPS. Medium averages 30 FPS, with a minimum of 26 FPS and a maximum of 35 FPS. High averages 23 FPS, and Ultra averages 22 FPS. The Low-to-Medium drop is 9 FPS, Medium-to-High is 7 FPS, and High-to-Ultra is 1 FPS. The 1440p results are uniformly 8-9 FPS lower than their 1080p counterparts across the settings range, indicating that the resolution increase imposes a consistent load penalty regardless of quality preset.

At 3840x2160, the numbers fall to their lowest measured levels. Low averages 29 FPS. Medium averages 22 FPS, with a minimum of 19 FPS and a maximum of 26 FPS. High averages 17 FPS, and Ultra averages 16 FPS. The drop from Low to Medium is 7 FPS, Medium to High is 5 FPS, and High to Ultra is 1 FPS. Notably, the gap between 1080p and 4K at any given setting is substantial: 19 FPS for Low, 15 FPS for Medium, 11 FPS for High, and 11 FPS for Ultra. The 4K Ultra result of 16 FPS is the lowest measured value in the entire dataset, and even 4K Low falls below the 30 FPS mark, making 4K effectively unusable for smooth gameplay in this title with this hardware.

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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread processor based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, with a TDP of 125 W. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The processor also includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, though this is irrelevant to the measured results where the discrete GTX 1650 is active.

The CPU's benchmark data shows a very strong multithreaded capability: Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44,253, Cinebench R20 multi-core of 24,461, and Cinebench R15 multi-core of 6,656. Single-threaded scores are also high: Cinebench R23 single-core of 2,439, R20 single-core of 3,453, and R15 single-core of 354. PassMark results include a multithread score of 68,574, a single-thread score of 5,068, and a physics score of 4,064. The CPU's 96th percentile ranking and its proximity to server-class Xeon and EPYC parts (within 2.1% delta) confirm that this processor is not a performance limiter in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

In the context of the measured FPS data, the CPU's role is one of providing ample headroom. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for its complex simulation logic, which can stress a single thread, but the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus's single-core performance (5,068 in PassMark single-thread) is more than sufficient. The fact that FPS scales so predictably with resolution and settings — with the CPU never appearing to cap performance — indicates that the bottleneck lies entirely downstream. The 24 cores and 24 threads also provide headroom for background tasks, but the game's performance is not improved by them because the GPU cannot keep up. The data suggests that this CPU would be capable of driving much higher frame rates if paired with a more powerful GPU.

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

Given the measured FPS data, the only settings combination that reliably achieves a playable frame rate is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which averages 48 FPS. This is the only measured configuration that exceeds 45 FPS, and it does so by a comfortable margin. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 37 FPS, which is still within a range that many flight sim enthusiasts would consider acceptable, but it comes with a minimum of 32 FPS that could cause noticeable stutter in dense scenery areas. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p, averaging 28 and 27 FPS respectively, fall below the 30 FPS threshold that is typically considered the floor for smooth gameplay.

At 2560x1440, the situation is more constrained. Low settings average 39 FPS, which is playable but requires accepting the lowest visual quality. Medium at 1440p averages 30 FPS with a minimum of 26 FPS, which is borderline and likely to feel inconsistent. High and Ultra at 1440p, at 23 and 22 FPS, are not recommended for active gameplay. At 3840x2160, all settings produce averages below 30 FPS, with Low at 29 FPS being the only configuration even approaching playability, and even that is marginal.

The data suggests that the best experience balancing visual quality and performance is 1080p Medium. While Low offers a higher average (48 vs 37 FPS), the Medium preset provides a substantial visual upgrade for a cost of 11 FPS, and the minimum of 32 FPS remains above the 30 FPS line. For users willing to sacrifice visual fidelity for smoother frame rates, 1080p Low is the clear choice. At higher resolutions, the GPU simply does not have the bandwidth or fill rate to maintain acceptable performance, so users are advised to stay at 1080p unless they can tolerate sub-30 FPS averages. The Medium preset's min/max spread of 32-43 FPS at 1080p also indicates more consistent frame delivery than the tighter but lower ranges seen at higher resolutions.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is based on the TU117 chip using the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process by TSMC. It has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, with memory running at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GPU features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. The shading units number 896, with 56 TMUs and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s, texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS. The card has a TDP of 75 W and requires no external power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The GPU's benchmark scores place it at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 7,472. Its nearest rivals are revealing: the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, +0.3%), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, +0.4%), AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425, +0.6%), and Intel Arc A310 (7,550, -1%). This places the GTX 1650 in a performance tier that overlaps with integrated graphics and very low-end discrete cards. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 and PassMark G3D score of 7,880 further illustrate its limited capability relative to modern gaming GPUs.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is critical, and the measured data reflects its constraints. The 4 GB VRAM is likely a significant limitation at higher resolutions, as the game's texture streaming and scenery data can easily exceed this capacity at 1440p and 4K. The 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth also becomes a bottleneck when the render target grows, explaining the steep FPS drops at higher resolutions. The GPU's compute capabilities, while modest at 2.984 TFLOPS, are sufficient for the game's rendering workload at 1080p, but the combination of limited VRAM, narrow memory bus, and low fill rate prevents any meaningful performance at higher resolutions. The fact that the GPU's percentile ranking (40th) is dramatically lower than the CPU's (96th) is the single most important factor in explaining the combo's bottom-4% rank in this game.