The title should be "yields" but there is a character limit on the title.  Anyways, the Toliss founder, Torsten Liesk, explains why MSFS gives higher FPS, because it is able to utilize more CPU cores, because the architecture is more asynchronous at the 18:49 mark of the video:

The key quote from Torsten Liesk is:

Quote

... this is the classic thing of asynchronous computation, which is the key reason why (in) MSFS, the FPS are better than in X-Plane, because MSFS they use multiple cores, X-Plane is going that way now but previously they didn't, and it made life for me a lot easier than everything was one serial computation, but it made the FPS slower.

I know a lot of people in this MSFS forum keep talking trash about Asobo, but Asobo came up with a really good architecture for MSFS 2020, and they enhanced that architecture even further in MSFS 2024 to make it even more asynchronous (actually, in the last Twitch Q&A, Seb talked briefly on the additional optimizations they made for SU4, so that they could take advantage of multiple cores even more).

If you have done software development and you have worked on multi-threading before, the way you take advantage of multiple cores is to make everything as asynchronous as possible.  The downside of making everything as asynchronous as possible, is that it becomes more difficult to program for, as Torsten says (having everything synchronous makes programming easier, but then the performance can suffer because fewer CPU cores are utilized).  But the upside is that performance is so much better if everything is made as asynchronous as possible, because then you can take advantage of more CPU cores, which ultimately leads to better FPS, just as Torsten says.

Among all civilian flight simulators, and even if you include the military flight simulators, there is no other flight simulator out there that can yield the level of graphics of MSFS 2024, and have as good as FPS that MSFS 2024 gives.  Torsten is saying right there that going as asynchronous as possible is the right thing to do, if you want to have a flight simulator that maximizes FPS and has as best performance as possible.

And looking at how SU4 is turning out so far and the performance that the SU4 beta testers are experiencing, I think the MSFS team have done a wonderful job of optimization and architecture.

Edited October 10, 2025Oct 10 by abrams_tank

And yet it still cant draw landing gear for more than a few hundred yards, go figure...

Absolutely no need to bold the part about X-Plane, it's like you want to start a flame war 🙄 Just let people enjoy what they want to enjoy, regardless of whether one sim is better in one area than another.

48 minutes ago, MarcG said:

Absolutely no need to bold the part about X-Plane, it's like you want to start a flame war 🙄 Just let people enjoy what they want to enjoy, regardless of whether one sim is better in one area than another.

I agree. There is no need to denigrate legacy software.

Hahahaha

3 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

MSFS gives higher FPS, because it is able to utilize more CPU cores, because the architecture is more asynchronous at the 18:49 mark of the video:

Among all civilian flight simulators, and even if you include the military flight simulators, there is no other flight simulator out there that can yield the level of graphics of MSFS 2024, and have as good as FPS that MSFS 2024 gives.  Torsten is saying right there that going as asynchronous as possible is the right thing to do, if you want to have a flight simulator that maximizes FPS and has as best performance as possible.

 

Thanks for sharing. 

MSFS is definitely more performant than X-Plane, no two ways about it. 

it makes touring and sightseeing so much more immersive than is possible in XP. Combine it’s with a Tier 1 addon and it’s a fantastic experience in all regards

(doesn’t mean I’m giving up XP as it has many strengths, but full credit to Asobo where it’s due 🤙)

 

1 hour ago, MarcG said:

Absolutely no need to bold the part about X-Plane, it's like you want to start a flame war 🙄 Just let people enjoy what they want to enjoy, regardless of whether one sim is better in one area than another.

Normally, I’d agree.

But given that ToLiss is one of the top XP developers and has now at least a couple years of MSFS dev experience, I think it’s an apt and appropriate comparison. 

i.e., highly technical info direct from a first hand expert in both platforms. 

and this is coming from me, a die hard XP fan 🤙

43 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I agree. There is no need to denigrate legacy software.

Easily rebuttable. So easy that I’m not gonna bother and risk derailing the thread. 😎

The two sims are much closer together than most fan(you know what)s admit. Both are amazing technical achievements, with differing approaches to various things.. but in the end, either sim will provide a brilliant experience, something we could only have dreamed of not too long ago. I fly more MSFS, but I also love XP.. the sims don't mind 🙂

2 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Easily rebuttable. So easy that I’m not gonna bother and risk derailing the thread. 😎

Thank you!

Thanks for the information.  I also believe the myth busting bolding helps to set the record straight.

dd

11 hours ago, MarcG said:

Absolutely no need to bold the part about X-Plane, it's like you want to start a flame war 🙄 Just let people enjoy what they want to enjoy, regardless of whether one sim is better in one area than another.

You're one of the most critical people on this forum on Asobo.  For example, you said this earlier this year :

Quote

I really wish they never chose Asobo in the first place(!), but this is where we are and what we have right now with two simulations in development by one team, so IMO it's pointless to continue wishing what they should've/could've done.

Look, a comparison is actually needed, because if you have nothing to compare to, sometimes you don't realize that what you have is actually really good.  I myself have been critical about XP at times, but I won't criticize their development team, because I have done software development myself and it's really, really, hard.  The folks at Laminar Research are professionals and are really good at what they do.  

But as per what Torsten Liesk said, MSFS 2024 is already using the most optimal asynchronous architecture, to maximize the performance of MSFS 2024.  This is exactly how it should be done in MSFS 2024, if you want to squeeze everything you can for performance.  And this is why I have even higher regards for Asobo, because they planned for the future with their architecture of MSFS 2024.  Obviously, Asobo could have used a more synchronous architecture, which not only would be easier for the 3rd party developers to program off of, but it also makes it much easier for Asobo to program off of, because a synchronous architecture is also much easier to manage.  But no, Asobo chose the harder and more complex road with a very asynchronous architecture, because they were looking into the future, and wanted MSFS 2024 to perform the best as possible.  

You can replace XP with P3D, DCS World, FSX, or any other flight simulator in Torsten's quote .  Right now, MSFS 2024 is using the most efficient architecture, based on the performance for the level of graphics that we are getting.  If there was a holy grail of architecture for a flight simulator in 2025, MSFS 2024 would be closest to that holy grail.

Which is why I don't understand why you are sometimes so critical of Asobo, even saying stuff like they shouldn't have been chosen in the first place.  We already have a track record of Asobo for MSFS 2020, and they created the best civilian flight sim ever made, four years after its release.  For MSFS 2024, I blame it more on Jorg and Microsoft for pushing the release out the door way too early, before Asobo (and the rest of the MSFS team) could fix the bugs. 

Based on the other flight simulators out there already, why wouldn't you want Asobo working on MSFS 2024, especially if you are concerned about performance?  And a lot of your comments are very critical about the performance in MSFS 2024, and yet based on Torsten Liesk, MSFS 2024 is already using the most optimal architecture for performance.  I think sometimes you need to realize that what we have is really good, and Asobo was actually a good choice for MSFS.  And as of SU4, we can really start to see MSFS 2024 shine.

Edited October 11, 2025Oct 11 by abrams_tank

10 hours ago, jarmstro said:

I agree. There is no need to denigrate legacy software.

🤣

7 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

You're one of the most critical people on this forum on Asobo.

Yes but I don't proactively start flame wars between sims to prove a point, my reasons for being critical of Asobo are factual and my opinions, on the flip side I am also very complimentary of some of their work.

Edited October 11, 2025Oct 11 by MarcG

Just now, MarcG said:

Yes but I don't proactively start flame wars between sims to prove a point, my reasons for being critical of Asobo are factual and my opinions, on the flip side I am also very complimentary of some of their work.

Well, there is no flame war here.  The thread has been civil so far.  Let's hope it stays civil.