Is Xbox now the cheapest 4K ultra solution?

I’m flying with an ASUS G15, Ryzen 7 4800 HS, Nvidia 1660ti, 16gb at 4K native reduced 50%, all settings basically on medium with 36 FPS max.

So is the Xbox a practical option if I want 4K ultra?


If you already have a 4K TV (or a monitor if you play that way) and are willing to be locked into the Microsoft in game marketplace only and give up on community created content as hosted on sites like and live with the limited selection of flight control peripherals available to a closed ecosystem then yes, it’s a good device that can run games at 4k

Oh…and there is no VR support either.

The question also remains…(especially after SU5 and the subsequent fixes)…is the Xbox actually running at what a high end PC might consider “ultra” or is it indeed just a mix of medium/high?


i9-9900k, 64 GB RAM, GTX 1660 TI, NVMe M.2 SSD

I fly 4K Ultra on a 65" native 4K display with the additional UserCfg.opt set to Preset=Custom and OBJ and Terrain LoD=6.

Note: 64 GB of RAM is not necessary for FS2020.

Xbox doesn’t run at native 4K either, for what it’s worth; Series X is running at 1440p upscaled to 4K. That’s equivalent to 4K with render scaling set to about 66.

XSS is running at 1080p and 100 render scaling.


Interesting! Basically the same video card but it has to be then that your CPU and RAM makes the difference. My laptop uses a Ryzen 7 4800 HS with 16GB. I think I’ve seen posts here saying that 32gb is great but anything beyond that isn’t used by MSFS.

My laptop can go to 24gb. I wonder how much difference the extra 8gb would make for MSFS?

I fly on Xbox Series X and with 77" OLED with VRR (FPS between 30 - 120fps). So for me it is a good Solution. I also fly with a Hotas One and there is also coming some nice controller from Honeycomb and the Turtle Beach VelocityOne Flight.

1 Like

Well, it doesn’t actually run at native 4K and the graphics settings are nowhere near Ultra on Series X.

If you want Native 4K and Ultra settings, you’re going to need a PC with hardware released in the last couple years - that isn’t a laptop.

I can honestly tell you that your performance is limited not just by hardware performance, but ultimately - thermals. Laptops use ultra-low power versions of their desktop counterparts and as such, cooling is severely small making them much more prone to thermal throttling. Even with fans running at 100%, that CPU and GPU is just slogging through 90+c temps.

Also, a 1660Ti is not meant to be used for 4K gaming. Its essentially a weaker 2060 without the RT cores which many agree that its a budget 1080p card.

Its a bit weird to run 4K native resolution and downscale to 50%… you’re literally running at or just above 1440p. And without knowing HOW that scaling is performed (either by pixel, or integer or otherwise) you could be using way more processing power than if you’re just running native 1080 or 1440 at 100% scaling.

I guarantee you that if you set resolution to 1080P alone and touch nothing else, you’ll see a bit of a gain in FPS. Even more so if you use graphics preset closer to match the capabilities of the 1660Ti which is around Medium.

4K at 50% scaling is exactly 1080p. If he’s running a 4K monitor, this is actually the better option than running at 1080p.


Yeah, I’ve tried quite a few iterations and running at my native 4k (what my laptop/monitor runs at all the time) and reducing 50% gives me a crisper view of things than does running HD at 100%. It seems like the gauges and things are sharper. I’ve not noticed any perceptible performance issues with that setup



3840x2160 is 8,294,400 pixels

4096x2160 is 8,847,360 pixels

1920x1080 is 2,073,600 pixels

4K via 3840, is 4x times the resolution of 1080p because the resolution is doubled both vertically and horizontally.

If OP is running on a native 4K display, he’s better off running at native 4k with lower graphics preset or any resolution that is between that and 1440p at any graphics settings than running at native 4K.

That’s the correct way of doing it. Because 1080p is cutting resolution in half, your monitor will display each pixel at native 1080p as 4 pixels on your monitor. If. you run 4K and 50% scaling, your GPU renders at 1080p, upscales to 4K for display, and then AA is applied. This will give you a much sharper image at the same processing cost as running 1080p at 100% scaling.


While your numbers are technically correct, that’s not how it works.

4K is 2 x 1920 x 2 x 1080 basically 2 x 2 1080p.

50% of each side of 4K cuts it in half, which gives you 1920 x 1080. That’s how resolution scaling works.

Just use the slider in the menus and adjust the scaling. You’ll see it matches up exactly with what I’m saying.


It seems that the situation is that for less than $1000 the Xbox gets close to 4k ultra but for the real deal it requires a PC with a price tag in the thousands (assuming a decent video card can even be found).

To move beyond where I’m at from a quality standpoint, I’d have to buy something new. I already have a nice 4k tv and the xbox definitely would be a big improvement. But I need a new PC if I want the true 4k/Ultra experience.

Lots of food for thought

I would probably think a lot of that would then have to do with how the display handles lower resolutions. Not every display, TV or Monitor handles varied resolutions lower than their native the same way - some better than others. Even if the lower resolutions are equally divisible by the total number of available pixels on the display.

But the point remains, you’re pushing your GPU to run a game at higher resolutions than its relatively capable of.

At the sacrifice of overall visual quality or being slightly blurrier, running at native 1080p with a lower preset will definitely get you the performance you’re looking for but not the fidelity.

You’ll need to make a compromise in some way whether you want to get an Xbox for MSFS, or a new PC if you want Native 4K at Ultra/Beyond Ultra.

With Xbox, you’re sacrificing both but may be better than what your laptop can provide.

With PC, you’re sacrificing money at the cost of a no-compromise native 4k at Ultra.

1 Like

The scaling itself in the game depends on HOW its performed.

Per-Pixel scaling is the least costly and maintains “pixel perfect” sharpness as long as the scaling is an even equivalent to the panels native resolution.

Integer scaling is most processing costly but is also a balance in sharpness (slightly blurry) and can sometimes hide artifacts that are inherent with different graphics settings, especially with AA where shimmering is a problem.

There are some other methods of scaling but Per-Pixel and Integer are the more commonly used and what I know.

For me, overall while in the Cockpit, everything is relatively blurry on the edges especially with the analog gauges and I think a lot of that has to do with how they made the assets. If I crank the resolution all the way to 4K with no scaling, they look almost perfect at the default seating position. Any lower and they start to become a bit fuzzy with some slight shimmering.

This leads me to believe the scaling is Integer based and why OP perceives a sharper image at native 4k with 50% scaling. But also without knowing what the rest of his graphics settings are, we can only make a guess as to why that is as they all play a part in the overall look regardless if we wanted to debate about resolution scaling and pixel counts.

In any case, OP has a choice to make that only he can make for himself that i’ve already listed

Well I’m not unhappy with my current results. On a laptop that uses a Ryzen 7 4800HS, Nvidia 1660ti, 16gb, I get a pretty steady 36 FPS (max setting in Nvidia settings) with everything on Medium other than LOD and TOD (or whatever they are) set to 200 and clouds on High. This at native 4K game reduced 50%. I’m GPU bound and this has my GPU riding around 90% on average.

Good info about my choices here. Thanks :+1:

PS: One thing for sure… clouds less than High look awful

Well, the way I described is the way that scaling works in MSFS, and it can easily be confirmed by simply going into the options and playing with the scaling slider, as it will tell you what the resulting resolution will be. The scaling factor is applied to each the horizontal and vertical resolution, not to the overall number of pixels on the screen.

That’s where your original calculations, while correct in their own context, don’t apply to MSFS as 50% scaling gives you 1/2 the vertical and horizontal dimenstions, which results in 1/4 (1/2 ²) of the pixels, not 1/2 of the total pixel count. And inversely, 1080p with 100% upscaling gives you 4K (3840x2160).

This is the same way nVidia’s DLSS and AMD’s FidelityFX Super Resolution calculate resolution to scale their images as well.

1 Like

MSFS is a 10 years project… The question is: will the sim stop its development and improvment once xbox was launched in 2021 to “fit” at the console technology?
Imagine… in 2023, with new games, new playstation, new technologies, the console will be already overcome, and they will release another xbox…will you buy this new xbox to keep playing msfs? If so, then is cheaper buy a high end pc.
Maybe a high end PC will be usefull in 2031…what about xbox?

Asobo have already hinted at this both directly by saying that there would be “beyond ultra” settings, and indirectly by have LOD setting levels in the config file that aren’t currently accessible via the in-game options.

You can increase your LOD to 9.0000 in the config file, and the graphical fidelity increases significantly, although at a high processing cost that really only people with top shelf current hardware can run reliably.

I suspect that’s the strategy going forward. The PC version will eventually get the option of increased LOD and other visual effects where the console will stay at its current levels. When the next generaton of Xbox launches in about 5 years, it will be able to access higher end graphics to suit its hardware, but the current gen will remain at its current settings.

I find that the performance is poor since WU6. Try flying out of MMMX in Mexico and look at how bad the frame rates are. Before WU6 it was fluid.

1 Like