2 ms·

They are? Games need pretty much all the performance they can possibly get. Can you sandbox them without having a performance impact? Consider that people pay

by Aerroon 5mo ago

They are? Games need pretty much all the performance they can possibly get. Can you sandbox them without having a performance impact? Consider that people pay a $300 premium to get ~10% better performance (buying an RTX 5080 instead of a 5070 Ti). Personally I know that sometimes closing the web browser in the background makes my game run better - that web browser doesn't even interact with the game! Would a sandbox have a smaller impact?

blueg3 5mo ago
It certainly could. Buying a better GPU improves your graphics performance and that's basically unrelated to the area where a sandbox impacts performance. Killing your web browser is probably just lowering memory pressure? Sandboxes add overhead to syscalls. It's kind of similar to running under Wine, which also adds significant syscalls overhead. Wine also has a much more impactful DirectX translation layer, so your sandbox performance would be probably be much better than the Wine performance.
- devmor 5mo ago
  > your sandbox performance would be probably be much better than the Wine performance. That’s hard to believe, given that many games run better under WINE than native Windows.
  - blueg3 5mo ago
    AIUI, this is relatively rare, and is because of DXVK on games that use old DirectX APIs.
chainingsolid 5mo ago
Most of the sandboxing you need for a game is less full sandbox and more a whitelist on file access and local network communication.
Levitating 5mo ago
> Can you sandbox them without having a performance impact? On Linux certainly so, and I think if Steam is installed as a flatpak all games naturally are sandboxed.