Tested: Default Windows VBS Setting Slows Games Up to 10%, Even on RTX 4090

RTX 4090 and VBS
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Remember back when Windows 11 launched and there was a concern about how the default of enabling Virtualization Based Security (VBS) and HyperVisor-Enforced Code Integrity (HVCI) might impact performance? There was a lot of noise made, benchmarks were run... and then we all moved on. Flash forward to 2023, and I recently discovered that sometime in the past few months, the PC I use for the GPU benchmarks hierarchy had it turned on, which could have been the result of mucking about with Windows Subsystem for Linux while trying to get Stable Diffusion benchmarks on various GPUs. (We have an article on how to disable VBS should you want to).

Correction (3/22/23): An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that a Windows update had enabled VBS on my PC. However, we have since learned that Windows updates do not enable VBS, so it must have been something else I installed or enabled. Whatever the case, most new PCs ship with VBS on and clean Windows 11 installs have it enabled also.

This defaulting to VBS on, everywhere, worried me, because I'm already in the middle of retesting all the pertinent graphics cards for the 2023 version of the GPU hierarchy, on a new testbed that includes a Core i9-13900K CPU, 32GB of DDR5-6600 G.Skill memory, and a Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus-G 4TB M.2 SSD. Needless to say, you don't put together best-in-class parts only to run extra features that can hurt performance.

Except... I did. When I put together the new testbed for the coming year back in November, just before the RTX 4080 and RX 7900 XTX/XT launches, I was under a time crunch. I got Windows 11 installed and updated, downloaded the rather massive 1.5TB of games that I use for testing onto the SSD, and got to work — all with VBS enabled. Having now caught my breath and with a bit of extra time, I belatedly realized my error, if you can call it that.

So I set about testing, and retesting, performance of the fastest graphics card, the GeForce RTX 4090, with and without VBS enabled. After all, we're now two new CPU generations beyond what we had at the Windows 11 launch, and with faster CPUs and new architectures, perhaps VBS has even less of an impact than before. At the same time, we're also using new GPUs that deliver substantially more performance than the RTX 3090, which was the fastest GPU back in 2021, which could make CPU bottlenecks and extras like VBS more of a hindrance than before.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Jarred Walton
Senior Editor

Jarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on everything GPU. He has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge '3D decelerators' to today's GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.

  • Why_Me
    Good read ^^
    Reply
  • PlaneInTheSky
    12tL3znmoXU
    Reply
  • Viking2121
    Yeah, I knew this hurt FPS long time ago, but I forgot all about it when I reinstalled windows, turning it back off lol
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    Viking2121 said:
    Yeah, I knew this hurt FPS long time ago, but I forgot all about it when I reinstalled windows, turning it back off lol
    This was me with the 13900K. New test build, totally forgot about VBS. Which is really why this article exists. I freaked out and thought, "OMG how much performance am I losing because of VBS!?" Thankfully, everything was tested on the 13900K with it enabled, so it's still "fair" in that sense. But I'm left trying to decide if I should retest the various GPUs with VBS disabled, or stick with the Microsoft default of having it on? Decisions, decisions...
    Reply
  • flashflood101
    It's incredibly irresponsible to promote disabling important security features.
    Reply
  • hotaru.hino
    flashflood101 said:
    It's incredibly irresponsible to promote disabling important security features.
    Security is all about risk management. We have to know what these features do in detail, how they impact our system usage, and the probability of scenarios in which not having this security feature enabled or available would be a problem. For example, you might say it's incredibly dumb to run Windows XP because of how insecure it is now. Except... just don't plug it into the internet (or a network that has free access to the internet) and nearly all of that risk goes away.

    In the case of businesses and whatnot, some may not deploy security patches immediately, or at least not to every system they have. If the security patch creates other issues, that could bring down the entire business, and they would have to roll back the patch anyway.

    Otherwise blindly saying every security feature should be used may as well be telling everyone they need to get on Windows 11 right now (and if they don't have supported hardware, they need to buy it) and saying they can stay on 10 is irresponsible.
    Reply
  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    I would say that with a 5% average FPS difference at 1920x1080 and 2% difference at 3840x2160, that's a negligible and expected difference between a prepared benchmark machine and typical PC, especially if you look at the actual performance differences and see that the most affected game, MS Flight Sim, goes from 151.9 to 168.8 fps, you're not jumping into any new performance tiers, you're still a solid 144hz.

    I think anyone using a system costing the better part of $3000 would be more concerned about getting just 40FPS in Cyberpunk 4K than going from 319FPS to 350FPS in Borderlands at FHD.
    Reply
  • Elusive Ruse
    Thanks Jarred, this was a timely headsup! Also I'm glad to see you're diligent about squeezing every bit of performance out of your setup.
    Reply
  • PlaneInTheSky
    flashflood101 said:
    It's incredibly irresponsible to promote disabling important security features.

    I've been reading about what this feature does for the last 30 minutes and I have to agree.

    This should not be disabled.

    This is the windows hypervisor, it is a critical part of Windows their security system. It abstracts running processes from the core OS and private user data.

    Not only does it protect you from viruses, malware, etc, it also protects you from programs that are not viruses, from accessing your files, even in offline mode.
    Reply
  • mhmarefat
    PlaneInTheSky said:
    It abstracts running processes from the core OS and private user data.
    WOW! Windows users can now go to sleep with the ease of mind that their private data is safe at the trustworthy hands of Microsoft. A small performance regression (on a 13900k no less.. not sure how severe the penalty would be on lower end CPUs that normal people use) is the price to pay for guranteed private user data protection (Microsoft's red line).
    Nothing to see here.. move along people.
    Reply