I was reading around some forums and came across this:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/580627-witcher-2-performance-issues-solved-3.html

Basically saying that the Retail and D2D (any version with the Securom) has a noticeable difference in FPS and that using the GoG exe/dll can increase your performance by 10-15 fps.

Now I haven't tried myself and I don't believe the GoG rules would let us link to or post places to get the actual exe/dll you need.

However does anyone know if thiere's truth to this? Since that thread was locked for people posting links to the exe/dll I'd appreciate if this thread just went on topic if the non-securom version actually had a higher performance then the one with it and if changing them out actually works for anyone?

Simple answer is yes,a friend called me over to his house just to show me the results.
[and of course show off that hes playing it before me]

Theres a massive difference.

Yes it works and it is true. I am using the witcher2.exe and Paul.dll from GoG version in my D2D download. I get 7-10 FPS more, and the game loads up a whole lot faster.

Dual cores CPU system see the biggest difference, Quad Cores see ~up to 10 FPS, where as 6 cores don't see any difference.

In theory SecuROM SHOULDN'T cause lower frame rates, But then SecuROM is infamous for all sorts of quirks and PC rootkit type behavior with hard to remove tracking garbage/processes. I was grieved to hear CD Projeckt, who were my heros for starting GOG.com, would use this infamous DRM solution. Witcher 1 used something less intrusive (tested it with my offline XP box and it worked perfectly). I thought they would have known better. Especially after Ea/Bioware lied about using SecuROM and claiming it wasn't. LOL At least GOG.com gave us the option to get it SecuROM free (helping to prove just how bad it is...).

I won't say the GOG.com version of the game is completely DRM free yet, because I'm waiting till I see an official link that will let me download the upcoming patch without attaching my MS XP box its installed on to the Internet. (I download files thorugh my Linux box as it won't do any funny "phone home" operations on me and my XP box stays safe offline. People are already resorting to unofficial (pirate/unsafe?) links for DLC because the "in program" download/install mech is failing. This difficulity was fairly predictable. When I can download any patches available to my Linux File server (as many have serious problems with the game or cannot play it right now..) I'll call it mostly DRM free. If I can get separate links to the free DLC without attaching my MS XP box, its home (DRM) free.(and I'll breath a great sigh of relief.) I'm starting to feel that the DLC distribution channel right now is a form of light DRM unto itself but perhaps I'm being hasty (Please, prove me wrong CD Projeckt...please...). Look at the paid GOG users resorting to what could be tainted file sources already. Its a serious letdown.

Some people are so paranoid.

...and with good reason. If you know knew the things I've cleaned of other people's MS PC's (Chinese viruses/malware are particuarly painful).

Do you need both?

As callous as it sounds, it's hard for me to raise my care-o-meter when DRM is so stupid and CPR was able to bypass the publishers and their asinine clinging to it and offer it DRM free through their sister company, who's forums we are posting it on. As I see it, anyone who didn't buy it to cut out the middleman was supporting the DRM system and deserve any hassles it might have brought.

That said, I'm sure CPR, as a business, will be less harsh on their views and try to reduce any differences between the DRM and non-DRM versions.

Hmm I partly agree, though many were not aware of the GOG release, and others prefer a box (in this case, I especially don't blame them).

Fair Point. Hope you are right about the reductions, meaning just remove the bloody DRM from the disks altogther via a patch after they release the fully/final patched "Platinum" edition 1 year or 2 from now. LOL

Bear in mind I think chautemoc is right; some people just didn't know. Not everyone knew about gog.com as we did. (although the gaming news media has cured many of that by now...)

Holy #$%#. Glad I didn't buy THAT game! I've got Plextor and Pioneer drives I am very fond of. Never did I think SecuROM went THAT far. Thanks for the info.

Uhm... I knew about it and specifically bought the retail version because I wanted the stuff in it, on other games that just come inside an almost empty DVD case I wouldn't care but things like a map, Game Guide, coin etc. make me want to get the physical product...

I would've preffered to procure it directly from CDProjekt though but that wasn't a possibility. I remember Telltale promising everyone that Pre-Ordered the Digital Copy of some of their games a physical copy for Postage fees only, happily would've done something like that.

I was thinking long and hard if I want a copy with SecuRom in the first place or just wait it out for a while but the amazing footage in the last few days and all that finally made me order a copy.

If they wanted to entice people to buy the Digital Copy... putting all that amazing stuff in your Retail games isn't the way to go about it xD

At the time I pre-ordered The Witcher 2 from Direct2drive, they had a huge logo right on the page, "DRM Free", plus I got a 20% discount coupon for D2D. It wasn't until I installed the game that I found out it had DRM.

Also not everyone knew about the GoG release, and some people don't like using digital distribution. People who do use digital distribution prefer to keep all their games to 1 or 2 platforms. And then some people were able to get a discount from Direct2drive because of coupons or promotions and got it cheaper. Well the place I downloaded the files from had both of them in it, so I would assume so. Perhaps the rumor about changing exe files could break the game later on could be true if they didn't also use the DLL file.