...since 1.1 did nothing to upgrade the performance?
This is no hate-responce, dont get defensive, but clearly all the problems arent solved.
FPS is just terrible. I play on high settings (with antialiasing, ubersambling, vsync and ssao off) and get 13-15 fps. With all those mentioned above on, I get around 10-12. On lowest possible settings (everything turned off), its 14-18.

Moving is hard, combats are uber hard, since as I move and swing around, game takes time to respond and I find myself playing turn-based rpg instead.

My PC isnt hi-tech, but it was capable of handling big stuff (I went trhu Portal 2 on almost highest settings without single lag)

Win 7, 64bit
Intel Core i5, 2.27ghz
4gb Ram
GeForce GT 330M, 3gb memory
latest beta driver installed, 3d vision uninstalled

Im out of ideas what to do. It was my most anticipated game of the year and its killing me that experience is so unpleasant :(

Out of curiousity, is your vram shared? If so...that's a problem.

your graphic card seems to be very low..I'm not sure any patch will ever help you :(

Don't get defensive, but I doubt any patch is going to make that hardware suddenly run on high. Portal 2 is probably not a good example of your hardware being good. :/

not to sound like a party crasher, but Portal 2 is made to run on very old hardware. it isnt a good benchmark. the framrate you got sounds about right with that graphic card, thats the negative in playing latest pc games built for the latest pc's. But if you one day upgrage you will see the difference

still... on lowest settings it shouldnt be so bad. I dont play many games, but those I played recently (Dragon Age 1/2, Mass Effect 1/2, Fallout: New Vegas, Civ 5, Portal 2) I almost always ran on highest settings (with exeption of DA2).

It bugs me that suddenly there is a release that is unplayable even with everything off...

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Laptop-Graphics-Cards.130.0.html

Way down in Class 2. Don't expect any patch to help a very intensive game run well on hardware like that, period.

It doesn't really matter how well you play other games. Here, let me be a little more specific.

A 330M graphics card is well below even the MINIMUM specs for this game. It's like roughly half as good as the MINIMUM spec video card.

I can understand one would feel like that, but pc gamer are use to being held back by consoles. meaning that games are designed to run very good on a console, then later adapted to run a pc. finally, 3-4 years later this is a game that even though the engine works with consoles isnt crippled by it. so anyone that are used to playing on console ports might have a problem with this game because it uses more power than usual

Laptops sometimes have what's called "shared memory" where the onboard video and system ram are shared. So, if the user has 4 gigs of ram, and the video is sharing 3 gigs of it, he only has effectively 1 gig of memory which could cause massive stuttering and lag.

None of the games you mentioned seem all that demanding compared to Witcher 2. Maybe FNV? I know I was able to max it out on my rig, which I can not do with Witcher 2, so perhaps not the best benchmark either. Regardless, the game seems very well optimized from what I can see. On my system (geforce 9800gtx+) I had to turn the resolution down to the 1600's, but after that, I was able to max everything besides ubersampling, AA, and shadows (the ultimate killer in frame rate) The main thing for looks seems to be the texture size which I have maxed out, so I'm happy.

tif

That card could have 10 billion gigs of memory. It wouldn't matter. It's a 330 M. :/

he said he got 4gig regular ram, so I dont think thats the case here

N/M... everything's been answered adequately.