Is MSFS 2024 FPS better than MSFS 2020?

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 does not deliver universally higher FPS than MSFS 2020. On a modern, CPU-limited PC it can match or outperform 2020 because the engine distributes work across CPU cores more effectively. GPU-, VRAM- or streaming-limited systems may run 2024 worse, especially when settings are matched by name rather than visual quality.

Typical MSFS 2024 vs 2020 FPS results

MSFS 2024 has the clearest advantage when MSFS 2020 is limited by its main CPU thread, while MSFS 2020 can remain faster on machines with modest graphics hardware.

There is no trustworthy universal percentage such as “2024 is 20% faster”. Resolution, aircraft, airport, traffic, weather, add-ons and even the direction of the camera can change the result. MSFS 2024 improves multicore utilisation, but it does not eliminate CPU bottlenecks.

Why can MSFS 2024 feel smoother without higher FPS?

MSFS 2024 can feel smoother at the same average FPS because consistent frame times matter more than the headline average. A steady 35 FPS generally looks better than 45 FPS interrupted by regular spikes, particularly while panning the cockpit camera or approaching a detailed airport.

The reverse can also happen. MSFS 2024 streams more of its content, so network delays, scenery processing or a cold cache can cause pauses that an average-FPS counter hides. Treat low FPS and intermittent hitching as separate faults; our guide to diagnosing MSFS stutters and micro-pauses explains the frame-time side of the problem.

Frame generation also distorts comparisons. Disable it when measuring native performance, then test it separately. Generated frames can increase the displayed figure, but they do not remove a low base frame rate or its associated control latency.

Why is MSFS 2024 slower on my PC?

MSFS 2024 is often slower because the test has shifted from a CPU limit to a GPU, VRAM or data-streaming limit.

• The presets are not equivalent. An identically named preset can produce a different workload because scenery, draw distance, lighting and asset complexity differ between the simulators.
• Render settings do not match. Different render scaling, anti-aliasing, upscaler quality, resolution or frame-generation settings invalidate the comparison.
• VRAM is full. Once textures and scenery exceed available graphics memory, swapping assets can create severe frame-time spikes even when average FPS looks acceptable.
• The first run is being measured. Recently loaded scenery, shaders and streamed data can make an initial pass less stable than a repeated pass.
• Add-ons are dominating the workload. Two editions of the same aircraft or airport are not necessarily built or optimised identically.
• Traffic is consuming the CPU. Aircraft, road vehicles and airport activity can restore a MainThread limit that was absent in a quiet test.

Settings that change the comparison most

Terrain and object level of detail, traffic and complex aircraft primarily expose CPU limits; resolution, render scaling, clouds, shadows and reflections usually expose GPU limits. Texture resolution and detailed scenery place more pressure on VRAM.

Our breakdown of the graphics controls that affect CPU and GPU load in both simulators provides a sensible cross-version baseline. If 2024 alone performs poorly, use the separate method for identifying its active CPU, GPU, VRAM or streaming bottleneck.

How should I benchmark MSFS 2024 against 2020?

A fair test holds image output and workload as constant as possible, then compares both average FPS and frame delivery. Perfect equality is impossible because the simulators use different scenery, aircraft systems and streaming behaviour, but the following method removes the largest errors.

1. Prepare both simulators. Install their available updates, restart the PC and use the same graphics-driver configuration for each test.
2. Fix the output settings. Use the same display resolution, render scaling and anti-aliasing or upscaling mode. Disable VSync, FPS caps and frame generation for the native test.
3. Run two comparisons. First use the same nominal preset; then adjust settings until image quality and draw distance look reasonably comparable. The second test is usually more useful to a player.
4. Control the flight. Use the same location, fixed weather, local time and camera view. Turn off multiplayer and variable traffic, and begin with stock content before testing demanding add-ons.
5. Allow assets to settle. Do not compare a cold first pass in one simulator with a warmed, cached pass in the other. Repeat the same route after scenery and cockpit assets have loaded.
6. Check the limiting component. Use the built-in performance display to see whether the simulator reports a main-thread or GPU limit. Similar FPS numbers caused by different limits require different fixes.
7. Repeat your real workload. After the controlled run, test the aircraft, airport, weather and traffic combination you actually fly. That result matters more than an empty-runway benchmark.

Should I switch to MSFS 2024 for better performance?

Do not move to MSFS 2024 solely for an assumed FPS increase.

• MSFS 2024 makes most performance sense when MSFS 2020 is persistently main-thread limited and the PC has a recent multicore CPU with enough GPU and memory headroom.
• MSFS 2020 may remain the safer performer on a finely tuned system with marginal VRAM, an older GPU or add-ons already proven stable in that simulator.
• If both are GPU-limited, lowering render scaling or expensive visual settings will usually matter more than changing simulator versions.
• If both reach your chosen FPS cap, compare frame-time consistency, camera panning and approach performance rather than chasing a higher counter.

FPS is only one part of the choice. Our comparison of the wider engine, streaming and feature differences between MSFS 2020 and 2024 covers the factors that a frame-rate test cannot show.