Good analysis from Tom’s Hardware testing FS 2020 across four different rigs.
TL;DR for the short attention span folks:
In a similar vein, you’re not going to be running Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K and maxed out settings with anything close to 60 fps — not on today’s hardware. CPU bottlenecks are likely to keep you below 60 fps even at 1080p ultra, but at 4K ultra? The RTX 2080 Ti managed 33 fps. We’re skipping ahead, and you certainly don’t need ultra settings (the high and even medium presets look quite good), but the point is that this is a game that will punish both CPUs and GPUs for years to come.
OP Comment - apparently the 95GB of mandatory packages is transferrable across machines. You just need a license and the initial 1GB successfully downloaded and installed. Per the article:
Normally, this would all be protected data under the WindowsApps folder, but for Microsoft Flight Simulator, all of this data resides in your user AppData\Local\Packages folder and can be freely copied to another PC. That’s a win for hardware testers, at least.
OP Comment: apparently only about a third of the performance settings made a difference. Snippets follows:
There are 26 advanced graphics settings, but only nine of those actually cause more than a tiny difference in performance. (Note that we tested the settings with a Core i9-9900K, however, so some of the settings may have a more noticeable impact on performance with a slower CPU.)
All told, low quality more than doubled performance compared to ultra quality (nearly triple in the case of the RX 5600 XT), and there are still one or two settings you could adjust (like resolution scaling ), if you’re trying to run the game on a potato.
LOD Lowering this setting can improve performance by up to 15% (but we recommend using 50-100, which yields a 5-10% improvement).
Not surprising: Clouds - However, the low setting also provided a 31% boost to framerates .
Plenty of fodder in the article. Enjoy, and don’t get trampled in the outraged comments that likely will follow. 
