Compare PMDG 737 vs iniBuilds A320neo V2 FPS and VRAM in MSFS 2024, with likely winners, bottlenecks and a repeatable PC test.
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 generally runs the PMDG 737-800 at higher, steadier frame rates than the iniBuilds A320neo V2. VRAM use is closer and has no universal winner: scenery, resolution, texture settings and livery can outweigh the aircraft. Test both in the same scene, restarting the simulator between runs.
Which aircraft gives better FPS in MSFS 2024?
For FPS and frame pacing, the PMDG 737-800 is the likely winner. We are treating performance as base frame rate and frame-time consistency, not systems depth, flight modelling or ease of use.
The PMDG normally places less visible pressure on frame rates in the virtual cockpit, while the A320neo V2's displays, avionics and cockpit rendering can expose a CPU or GPU bottleneck. The gap may disappear at a busy airport where traffic, scenery and terrain draw calls make both aircraft MainThread-limited.
| Measure | Likely result | What can change it |
|---|---|---|
| Base FPS | PMDG 737-800 advantage | Airport complexity, traffic, cockpit view and processor performance |
| Frame-time consistency | Usually PMDG 737-800 | Scenery streaming, background traffic and whether the scene has fully loaded |
| VRAM use | No dependable winner | Resolution, texture quality, livery, airport and external or cockpit camera |
| Performance after VRAM is full | Whichever stays below the limit | Texture eviction can cause stutters, blurred assets and sharp FPS drops |
Which aircraft uses less VRAM?
Neither aircraft has a reliably lower VRAM footprint across every PC and flight. We would call this part of the comparison a draw unless a controlled test on the target system shows a repeatable difference.
Aircraft systems complexity does not translate directly into video memory use. Much of the systems logic affects the CPU and main memory, while VRAM is consumed by textures, geometry, render targets, scenery, weather and traffic models. The package's installed size is therefore not a useful VRAM measurement.
A high-resolution livery or detailed third-party airport can reverse a small aircraft-level difference. The mistake we see constantly is loading one aircraft after the other without restarting: MSFS may retain cached or allocated resources, making the second aircraft appear more demanding.
VRAM counters also differ in what they report. Compare dedicated GPU memory using the same monitoring method, and do not treat allocated memory as proof that every megabyte is actively required. If memory is close to capacity but frame times remain stable, the reading alone does not establish a bottleneck.
How do you test the PMDG 737 and A320neo V2 fairly?
A fair comparison keeps the scene, aircraft state and graphics workload fixed while loading each aircraft in a fresh simulator session.
- Verify the aircraft versions. Use the correct MSFS 2024-compatible PMDG package; our breakdown of PMDG compatibility and package selection helps prevent testing the wrong build. Also confirm that the Airbus is the iniBuilds-built V2 rather than the older default aircraft or another A320 add-on; we explain how to identify the A320neo V2.
- Freeze the environment. Use the same airport, stand, time, preset weather, camera and graphics settings. Disable variable live traffic and multiplayer aircraft during the test.
- Match the operating state. Power both aircraft fully, illuminate their normal cockpit displays and use equivalent cockpit views. Comparing a cold-and-dark 737 with a running A320 is not representative.
- Restart between aircraft. Load one aircraft after a fresh simulator start, allow scenery and cockpit textures to settle, record the result, close MSFS and repeat with the other aircraft.
- Measure base performance. Disable Frame Generation for the diagnostic run and observe FPS, frame times and whether the MSFS Developer Mode display reports a
MainThreador GPU limit. Retest with Frame Generation afterwards if that is how you normally fly. - Record dedicated VRAM consistently. Use the same counter after an equal settling period and compare behaviour over a fixed interval rather than taking one peak reading.
- Run two scenarios. Test once at a demanding airport and once airborne away from dense scenery. If only the airport result differs, scenery or traffic is probably dominating the comparison.
Which should you choose for a lower-spec PC?
The PMDG 737-800 is the safer choice when higher base FPS and steadier cockpit frame times are the main priorities, but it should not be assumed to consume less VRAM in every scene.
- Choose the PMDG 737-800 if the A320neo V2 is consistently CPU-limited or produces uneven frame times at your usual airports.
- Choose the A320neo V2 if you prefer the Airbus workflow and your controlled test shows no meaningful performance penalty. Do not select it merely because it is expected to use less VRAM.
- Change settings before changing aircraft if dedicated memory is filling. Texture Resolution, high-resolution liveries, output resolution, render scaling, detailed airports and varied traffic models can matter more than this aircraft choice. Our practical MSFS 2024 VRAM reduction steps identify which settings to adjust first.
If the performance display reports a MainThread limit, reduce traffic and Terrain or Object Level of Detail before blaming VRAM. If the GPU is limiting and dedicated memory is near capacity, reduce texture and rendering demands. Lower A320neo V2 FPS with spare VRAM indicates a processing or rendering bottleneck, not a video-memory shortage.