Process Lasso Hurts more than it helps? - see attached video.

[Globespy]

I have been using PL for a LOT of years.
I have used it across both AMD and Intel systems, and have always continued using it because of the numerous anecdotal reviews that support it's use.
Then I found this video, and it's not really a good advertisement for using PL - I have a similar 13th gen Intel-based system at home, but I mainly use my 5800X3D/4090 build so I haven't tested whether PL is providing a poorer gaming performance compared to not using PL.
Will figure out a similar testing approach to this guys video, and report back.

I have always believed that I was getting better gaming performance with PL running, and like many others, that belief has come mostly from other people's comments, but rarely with standardized testing to back up the claims.

Maybe this guy in the video was doing something wrong that gave much worse gaming results in a range of popular current gaming titles? If so, would love to hear from PL devs.

[Jeremy Collake]

I reviewed the video and it isn't the indictment of Process Lasso that the title would lead you to believe. In fact, he showcases how Process Lasso can be used to control how processes are run, exactly what it's for.

After installing Process Lasso, he has the goal of limiting E-core use, so he goes to set some rules. He skips past the Efficiency Mode OFF rules that are recommended, because they didn't provide a substantial change. He doesn't try CPU Sets, and instead moves to CPU affinities, the most forceful measure to keep processes off the E-cores.

In his testing of that draconian affinity rule, most of the games showed little to no significant change, but one had a conflict with the CPU affinity rule, rendering it unplayable. That 0 FPS result threw off the 12 game average at the end, accounting for most of the difference.

Still, it's certainly not surprising that a CPU affinity rule is not as effective as disabling E-cores entirely in the UEFI. However, disabling E-cores entirely means they aren't able to serve their purpose of reducing energy use, and those extra cores are unavailable if sufficiently multi-threaded load requires them.

It also isn't surprising that some games on some hardware have problems with certain CPU affinities, but that's hardly a case against the tool enabling him to make those changes! It's like saying Task Manager destroyed his FPS because he set some restrictive CPU affinity rules with it.

Ultimately, we think the take-home point is that tweaks should be made judiciously. Here at Bitsum, we are in the business of enabling you to make those tweaks!

[suikagamewater]

Modern Intel CPUs, particularly the 13th Gen and above, have aggressive power-saving features that dynamically scale clock speeds and core usage based on the workload. If PL is interfering with these settings by forcing a high-performance profile (or disabling power-saving states), it might result in higher temperatures and power consumption but without a proportional performance gain.

[delwynednacharmaine]

I think the video could have shown bad results because there are too many uncontrolled variables, like drivers or game settings. For me, PL does seem to provide more stable performance, although there are some games where it sometimes doesn't affect much. Some games are more demanding on single-core performance, and that's where PL might have an impact. I personally prefer to test it myself, so I can see the difference directly.