I’ve built a new computer with the exception of a new graphics card. I installed X Plane 11 and a high settings (not quite max) I can get a frame rate of 60+. How would that indicate the performance of MSFS 2020. 

It doesn't, really--different graphics engine entirely, different simulation.

You can always get a subscription to Gamepass for $1 and answer that question for yourself.  Personally, though, if you then decide to buy it, I'd uninstall that and get the Steam version instead.

A few years ago, I installed XPlane on my PC. Performance was terrible. 

MSFS, OTOH, now runs at around 27 fps for me, with all settings on medium. 

My PC is entering it's 7th year of existence, with 8 gigs of system ram and 4 gigs of vram. 

33 minutes ago, rosco3330 said:

I’ve built a new computer with the exception of a new graphics card. I installed X Plane 11 and a high settings (not quite max) I can get a frame rate of 60+. How would that indicate the performance of MSFS 2020. 

Is this vanilla X-Plane without any add-ons to make the graphics better and without ortho to bring it closer to vanilla MSFS?  

Edited September 10, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

I couldn't run xplane 11 maxed out on my high end PC. I could run most of the settings at max. The big problem was the clouds. Overcast clouds caused my high end system to tank. I didn't have any addons apart from the Zibo 737 and OrthoXP.

That same computer is running MSFS maxed out and the clouds don't make any difference as far as I can tell. Considering the graphical upgrade (better graphics, more autogen etc.) that really is something.

Edit: just to clarify I ran X-Plane pre-vulkan so my observations may be out of date.

Edited September 10, 20214 yr by sanh

Default X-Plane running Vulkan runs very well. The problem comes when you add all the additional payware addons you need to bring the graphics up to an acceptable standard. Then there is a big problem with performance.  You need a super computer to do it justice.

Edited September 10, 20214 yr by jarmstro

1 minute ago, sanh said:

Considering the graphical upgrade that really is something.

Yes, this is the miracle of MSFS.  I can understand if the graphics were just better than X-Plane, and it ran at the same FPS, that in itself would be a huge achievement for MSFS.  But not only are the graphics for MSFS so much better than X-Plane, the FPS is so much better as well.

Higher FPS and higher visual quality on MSFS than XP11. The issue with XP11 is that is only use about 2 or 3 thread max.  If you are above 1080p resolution, the performance is awful.  As much as I enjoy some of the aircraft on XP11, it's a really old engine that doesn't run well on modern hardware.

9 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Default X-Plane running Vulkan runs very well. The problem comes when you add all the additional payware addons you need to bring the graphics up to an acceptable standard. Then there is a big problem with performance.  You need a super computer to do it justice.

Yup, the apples to apples to comparison is to put all the best add-ons on X-Plane that enhance the graphics, and also use ortho, and then compare X-Plane to vanilla MSFS (this is why vanilla MSFS is so impressive).

In the FlyJimSim 727 on the ground at CYVR in XP11, I barely get 28fps. My GPU is used at 25%.  Even with this advanced payware by a great developer. Only 4 threads are being used. That's with Vulkan rendering. X-plane really needs a new modern rendering pipeline that take advantage of modern gpu.

3 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

X-plane really needs a new modern rendering pipeline that take advantage of modern gpu.

real pilots don't need all that, they fly IFR approaches in 0-visibility, all day and all night long. that's what he said. (he, the x-plane user) 😊

Just post what kind of PC you have...But typically flight simulation falls under the gaming category when you build a PC, so if you had a modern one capable running modern games no reason to not MSFS with the appropriate settings of course.

As for Xplane it is as well expected to shift with new graphics GPU intensive tech on their next generation version (my prediction in a couple months or so) as they explained with the latest blog posts.

MSFS should at some point move to DX12 as well so both will get even more efficient, so...any modern PC will be just fine.

The move to Vulkan/DX12 in the gaming industry is helping to mitigate the low-level APIs efficiency difference from a console (although fixed-hardware is another big difference), so IMO while graphics are going to get better it does not mean we will need monster PCs, good thing that Xplane/MSFS are following as well. 

Edited September 10, 20214 yr by akita

5 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Yes, this is the miracle of MSFS.  I can understand if the graphics were just better than X-Plane, and it ran at the same FPS, that in itself would be a huge achievement for MSFS.  But not only are the graphics for MSFS so much better than X-Plane, the FPS is so much better as well.

I totally agree with @abrams_tank. Most of us remember when, last year, we saw the first pre-release videos of MSFS. We were all stunned by the spectacular quality of the graphics. We suspected that the Asobo teaser videos were somehow artificially "glammed up." They weren't really straightforward screen captures from the game itself. We were almost universally skeptical that such a gorgeous simulator could ever run adequately on our current hardware. We'd all need to spend thousands of extra dollars just to run the sim at all. It seemed totally impossible back then that we'd actually gain more FPS using MSFS than we then experienced with X-Plane or P3D. So, now, we MSFS users definitely enjoy the best of both worlds -- best sim for graphics, best sim for performance. I might add that, because you don't need to spend hundreds of extra dollars to make the sim look acceptable (as you do with X-Plane and P3D), MSFS is also the most economical sim.

10 minutes ago, David Mills said:

MSFS is also the most economical sim.

Absolutely agree, just think of the hundrets most of us did spend on scenery...

I have an 8 year old system and after the latest updates I get butter smooth performance with most settings on high and FPS locked to 30 using VSYNC in MSFS. If I do a similar flight in X-plane 11 with full ortho and custom world2xplane scenery that I generated myself, I can still maintain 30fps, but only with clear skies or minimal clouds, reflections on low or off and no AI traffic. Overcast or broken clouds kill the framerate in X-Plane. I also have live traffic enabled in MSFS with little to no reduction in performance and overall the visuals are considerably better.