Your initial baseline was arbitrary. If the game had been 10% slower on Windows, would you have never enjoyed it? If not, how could switching with a 10% penalty be a deal-breaking downside?
Just do it. Swap and let go of objectivity. Let your subjective experience guide you.
For me, the subjective joy of not having to fuck around with Microsoft's bullshit was worth multiples of having to mess around with technical crap to get a game working (spoiler: I nearly never have to do that because I play single player games, Dota and CS). I couldn't give less of a damn if my FPS in some random title is 10% slower than it would be in Windows. So long as it's playable, I benefit in spades from the trade-off.
> spoiler: I nearly never have to do that because I play single player games, Dota and CS
I think most of the people who really care about game performance aren't people playing games like you do. They are either playing AAA games where the graphics quality is paramount, or competitive games where performance is useful for being competitive.
But it is also rare cases where a a few percent points actually make a huge difference. Remember when reviewers are doing benchmarks they're generally using a standardised test suite with uncapped framerates. For most people they would be perfectly happy to hit a target framerate, or if they really want to play uncapped they would first reduce a few graphical setting to archive good performance (most of time with imperceptible changes in the graphics). It is rare when the performance of the game is so tight in a hardware that a few percent points actually matter.
To give a particular example, I started playing GTAV on Windows after building a new PC since I had no spare drives. After finally installing Linux I decided to try GTAV on Linux just to see how well it would run. And it runs amazingly well, and yes, it runs a few percent points slower than Windows, but the only tradeoff I did was slightly increase FSR4 and the game still looks amazing. I didn't really notice any graphics issues, especially not during actual gameplay (if I stayed at the same place and started to nitpick I could notice differences).
I mean, there are costs to swapping though. Going by just feels seems to be the wrong way to think about it.
it can’t really be a way to think about it when the recommendation is to not think about it and just do it. experience, observe, reach opinion. all in accordance with you and not some number that’s abstract to your perception.
Yawman, being on Linux for everything else feels great. In a personal way (rather than technical) it’s like being back in my 20’s hacking Redhat and FreeBSD. I also find the community support is great when I’ve run into the odd issue. My FPS are good and I don’t think about it.
I select games based on ProtonDB. There’s always constraints and I’m cool with the limitations that this brings. BF6 is a no-go due to its anticheat tool, no problem. Got lots of other choices.
My son is really into soccer, so I wanted to get the latest ~~Fifa~~ FC game. Oh it has anticheat and doesn't run, at all. Frustrating because I wouldn't want to play online anyway.
Happy to not give EA any money if they're so set on shoving online play and therefore anticheat down the players throats.
Grateful that Steam allows easy refunds.
We're talking about gaming here.
What other goal is there than maximizing your subjective enjoyment of the game?
Sure if you're a professional streamer, your feels are maybe less important than engagement metrics but if you're just a casual?
Dude just play what feels good. It's literally the best and only metric.