You can lock the FPS at 30 or even 25 if you wanted to, I do it on high settings and the game runs fine and looks fine.

AMD Ryzen 2700X / NVDIA RTX2080 / 16G DDR4-3000 / 1440P   But I did just get another 16gigs because I've seen videos where it runs smooth as butter on ultra with 32gigs, with a similar set up to mine. 

Another mentioned that the FPS difference in not really noticeable when in flight, and it isn't.

There are small stutters but for crying out loud, the game has been out for a week.  KLAX and KSFO had the worst stutters but there were over 75 users at each airport.

Patience young grasshoppers, there is already a ton of liveries for free and I'm sure someone has already looked into trying to optimize graphics for the lower end systems.

I have been enjoying it for the week, only needed one update to get the game running and zero other issues before playing.

I've been playing PC games for 30 years, be happy you kids never had to troubleshoot a new game without the internet to search. 

This game is a HUGE FAIL for Microsoft, issues with download, installing, running.  Microsoft's refusal to give back money, the EPIC disaster is that it left so many individuals out of the realm of possibility of even participating in playing this game.

Personally I spent 6 days with both my computers mfg tech support, Microsoft game techs, Microsoft direct support in attempting to get it to fun.  no one knew the how or what in order to fix it to get it to work.

The SILENCE from Microsoft and Asobo is deafening to say the least.

I understand that some have been able to get it to run.  GOOD ON YOU.  But the forums are filled with hundreds if not thousands of comments of the struggles, the headache of this release...for some its back to Xplane 11 or MSFS X

I for one won't trust Microsoft any more.

I have to say that FS2020 is a remarkable achievement. It is the sim that I wanted 20 years ago.

I do not think you can call an Intel i9900K a high end cpu. It is thoroughly trashed by a number of low priced AMD CPUs. I am running an Ryzen 5 2600x with 16gb HyperX 3200mhz and a GeForce 970 4gb on an MSI Gamer Plus 470 with a 10phase VRM. Solidly middle ground.

This rig is definitely GPU bound in this sim. It is running 100%GPU and about 50%CPU at a resolution of 1980x900 at 22fps with settings all settings between "high" and ultra".

All cores, physical and virtual, are loaded equally so multi-threading/hyperthreading is working fine.

Reducing the resolution down to 1280 I can get 30FPS. Overclocking the graphics card nets me a further 10% improvement. CPU usage climbs about 10%.

Overclocking the CPU does not benefit much, but overclocking system memory does.

This clearly tells us the sim is GPU bound specifically, and likely IO bound in general. Its not number crunching that is the issue, its data movement.

Microsoft is not making games to play in a smooth way. Even you have a high end pc it is not possible to have more than 25 or 30 fps. I have Ryzen 7 2700 x, RX580 nitro crossfire, 32 gb 3200 mhz ram and still have maximum 25 fps. I lowered the details but nothing change. Do all gamers have to change the configuration of their pc just to play a simulation game? Even the flight sim x does not give fps more than 25 although its an old fashion game. They really work hard to make such games which can not be play by most players. One vga card costs $500 and the game it self costs about $100 and just to play that game you have to throw away your own card to buy a new one. That does not make any sense and the technology is totaly waste of time and money.

how undocumented can the authors of this "review" be?
no by no way this game is cpu limited...it would be if you had the same frame rates going from a gtx 1650 ti to a rtx 2080ti well it is not, it scales a lot with gpu ... it's on the contrary very badly uses cores which means even with high end cpus they are at most 40% used..

Have done a ton of testing, Really low fps in large airports. CPU utilization is extremely low... like less than 30% on all cores.  GPU utilization is higher but sometimes only in the 60% range. Yah, something is not right here.

9900K OC'ed to 5.1
2080Ti OC'ed to 2070MHz
64GB RAM
2 TB M.2 NVMe

That's a common misconception that happens after every new sim release... Some new players also complained about X-plane being "unoptimized", with their brand new rig barely reaching 40 (gasp) FPS.

But flight sims are very different from other games. You don't need twitch reflexes, you don't need perfect aim or even to fight against any enemies. It's just your plane, the clouds and the ground below, which isn't moving. Therefore, anything above 25 FPS will give you a smooth flying experience, because you're high above the ground (even in VFR), so you won't notice much difference between 30 and 60 or even 120...

The problem with MFS is the microstutter that can happen at any frame rate (probably because of background jobs loading the scenery, or buffering scenery ahead from MS servers). That's what kills the experience, not framerates below 60...

I think there might actually be something else afoot that is limiting performance.I have a 2019 LG Gram 17 (i7-8565U) with Sonnet Breakaway Box 550W that has an Asus Strix 2070 OC in it.

I was flying around a bit last night and brought up the game overlay and both my CPU and GPU were running about 60% utilization each. There's definitely something else going on here like PCIe bandwidth, memory bandwidth or SSD speed.

I'm using 4x PCIe obviously, my memory is 2400 instead of 3200 on the new 2020 Gram 17, and I'm using a SATA m.2 SSD still at the moment (it is a dedicated secondary drive for my games vs the boot drive though).. I guess any one of those could be it, because I am definitely expecting much higher utilization from either component.

"even when running on high-end hardware like the Intel Core i9-9900K"

High end??!
3950X is high end.

Very disappointed. Expected awesome graphics and got a slow, buggy unplayable mess, even at the lowest setting on a fairly advanced CPU.

DX11 is crap compared to DX12 or even Vulkan. That's the issue with Microsoft that makes the game looks like the next Crysis. Who the hell is making game with limited CPU core support API in 2020?

"The key takeaway, as many of these benchmarks note, is that the game puts heavy loads all CPU cores. It seems to ignore multithreading, opting instead for physical cores."

I think you mean "hyperthreading" not "multithreading."

Guru3D's benchmark shows a 10% improvement going from 4 cores to 8 cores.  I wouldn't exactly call that heavily loaded as a heavily loaded 4 core CPU-bound multi-threaded app would scale to 80-100% faster on 8 cores, all else equal.

Did they fix the CPU utilization or is this a mistake?
"The key takeaway, as many of these benchmarks note, is that the game puts heavy loads all CPU cores."

Hardware unboxed @ youtube tested this game with a 3950x but only 4 cores were actually loaded.