Quote from: aoihdya on April 12, 2026, 11:04:28 PMYou're not doing it wrong — you just can't reliably force it.I've been following the discussion regarding utilizing the Xbox app on PC for Call of Duty, and I'm interested in how this affects multiplayer experiences. Your suggestion is really impressive for experimenting with a suitable CPU. Let's research and explore.
Windows + AMD scheduler decides CCD usage, and Call of Duty often ignores V-Cache preference. Process Lasso rules usually get overridden (or blocked by anti-cheat).
Bottom line: no consistent "safe" way to lock it to CCD0. If it doesn't choose it itself, you're out of luck.
Modern CPUs: more cores, less control. Brilliant evolution.
Quote from: marktuan on May 03, 2026, 04:09:21 AMHey, I'm pretty new here too, but I ran into something similar with another EAC game.This is actually quite a common problem; CPU performance is crucial for stable operation. Process Lasso responds with the appropriate version to provide a good experience.
From what I've seen, the "Disable hyperthreading" option in Process Lasso doesn't always work properly with games that use Easy Anti-Cheat. It can either ignore the affinity or throw errors like the one you're seeing.
Have you tried setting a CPU affinity manually instead (like only selecting the physical cores and leaving out the logical ones), and then saving it as a persistent rule? That worked better for me than the HT toggle.
Are you launching it directly or through Ubisoft Connect every time?

Quote from: stevetyrell on April 21, 2026, 07:05:45 AMHi everyone, I've been diving deeper into Process Lasso and wanted to ask about best practices for handling newer hybrid CPU architectures with P-cores and E-cores. I'm considering setting up persistent CPU affinity rules to push background tasks onto E-cores while keeping P-cores free for foreground apps, but I'm not sure how well this plays with ProBalance and the Windows scheduler over time. For those who've tried more controlled setups, have you seen real performance gains or stability issues compared to just letting the system manage everything dynamically? I'm aiming for a balanced configuration that handles gaming, background apps, and occasional heavier workloads efficiently.I've experimented with pushing background tasks to E-cores while leaving P-cores mostly free, and I found that it can slightly improve responsiveness for foreground apps, especially in gaming. However, Windows' scheduler and ProBalance already do a decent job dynamically, so rigid affinity rules sometimes cause minor hiccups if workloads shift unexpectedly. For most users, a hybrid approach—letting ProBalance handle most processes while manually assigning only the heaviest background tasks to E-cores—strikes a good balance.