Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Performance With Ubuntu Linux vs. Windows 8.1 Is A Mixed Bag

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Intel Performance With Ubuntu Linux vs. Windows 8.1 Is A Mixed Bag

    Phoronix: Intel Performance With Ubuntu Linux vs. Windows 8.1 Is A Mixed Bag

    Earlier this week I published an extensive set of results from thirteen discrete AMD Radeon and NVIDIA GeForce graphics cards benchmarking various OpenGL games and comparing the Ubuntu Linux and Windows 8.1 performance when using the official AMD and NVIDIA drivers for each operating system. Those results were very interesting for both the AMD and NVIDIA GPUs, but now it's time to see how the Intel graphics are performing under Ubuntu and Windows 8.1 Pro x64. Making things even more interesting here is that Intel has only an open-source Linux driver and no closed-source solution.

    Intel Performance With Ubuntu Linux vs. Windows 8.1 Is A Mixed Bag - Phoronix
    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19280
    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Michael, would it make sense to do the same tests on Wine as well? I wonder if some of the Linux results could come closer to Windows, due to running actually the same code. After all, Linux binaries and Windows binaries might be compiled completely differently.

    Comment

    • #3
      Hmm, I really wish Michael had waited a couple of weeks to do this comparison. There are a whole bunch of shader optimisations that have been posted to the mailing list this week. A number of i965 specific one's but also general glsl optimisations which should help all drivers. This one seem like it would have given much improved results on Unigine Tropics: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/047194.html
      "for tropics, that accounts for most of the effect, the FPS improvement is 11.67% +/- 0.72%"

      It would be good to see these tests redone with these patches applied.

      Comment

      • #4
        Graphics driver guys should push DE guys more. In case of a performance regression it's usually the DE bunch who screwed up
        Bug 711028 – Tearing on Intel GPU - the CLUTTER_PAINT workaround
        https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=711028

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by tarceri View Post
          Hmm, I really wish Michael had waited a couple of weeks to do this comparison. There are a whole bunch of shader optimisations that have been posted to the mailing list this week. A number of i965 specific one's but also general glsl optimisations which should help all drivers. This one seem like it would have given much improved results on Unigine Tropics: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/047194.html
          "for tropics, that accounts for most of the effect, the FPS improvement is 11.67% +/- 0.72%"

          It would be good to see these tests redone with these patches applied.
          You can always wait for the next optimizations.... and the next... and the next...

          Or you do it like Michael and benchmark everything every month.

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by tarceri View Post
            Hmm, I really wish Michael had waited a couple of weeks to do this comparison. There are a whole bunch of shader optimisations that have been posted to the mailing list this week. A number of i965 specific one's but also general glsl optimisations which should help all drivers. This one seem like it would have given much improved results on Unigine Tropics: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/047194.html
            "for tropics, that accounts for most of the effect, the FPS improvement is 11.67% +/- 0.72%"
            Nice to see singnificant improvements still coming down the line. Thanks for the info, tarceri! It's also nice to see, in the article, that the very latest stack is already showing some significant improvements in some areas. This means that end users will see a nice performance gain in early 2014 as they upgrade their distros.

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by RushPL View Post
              Michael, would it make sense to do the same tests on Wine as well? I wonder if some of the Linux results could come closer to Windows, due to running actually the same code. After all, Linux binaries and Windows binaries might be compiled completely differently.
              No, it wouldn't make sense. Due to how unstable it is (and the regressions between versions), wine is completely useless for a hardware benchmark, especially when you're comparing open source drivers against closed source. The only meaningful benchmarks with wine would be to compare between different releases of wine, using the proprietary nvidia drivers. I suppose comparing wine against Windows would be useful too, but only for platinum-rated programs, and again, with proprietary nvidia drivers.

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by d2kx View Post
                You can always wait for the next optimizations.... and the next... and the next...
                I would normally agree with you but there has been many more Optimisation patches than normal posted to the list at one time . To add to the previous link there is also this 15 patch series: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/047185.html

                Originally posted by d2kx View Post
                Or you do it like Michael and benchmark everything every month.
                Yes but Windows vs Linux benchmarks are done a lot less often. As are benchmarks that include as many different benchmarks as this one did, for example lately the Unigine benchmarks haven't been getting run all that often. All I'm saying is it would be nice to see this all redone when the patches are merged, when Mesa 10 is released in a month or now with the patches applied to master.

                Comment

                • #9
                  I have to disagree with the interpretation of the Xonotic "Ultra" and "Ultimate" results. Sure, Windows gets higher peak and average fps, but look at the minimum fps numbers: In "Ultimate", the Windows result at 14fps is closer to the out-of-the-box result of 12fps than it is to the Mesa10 result of 17! Of course none are really playable numbers, but I'd prefer to play a game that drops down to 17fps than one that falls to 12fps no matter how smooth it is when you stare at the floor! ;-)

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
                    Phoronix: Intel Performance With Ubuntu Linux vs. Windows 8.1 Is A Mixed Bag

                    Earlier this week I published an extensive set of results from thirteen discrete AMD Radeon and NVIDIA GeForce graphics cards benchmarking various OpenGL games and comparing the Ubuntu Linux and Windows 8.1 performance when using the official AMD and NVIDIA drivers for each operating system. Those results were very interesting for both the AMD and NVIDIA GPUs, but now it's time to see how the Intel graphics are performing under Ubuntu and Windows 8.1 Pro x64. Making things even more interesting here is that Intel has only an open-source Linux driver and no closed-source solution.

                    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19280
                    Michael, is there a openbenchmarking id for this? I'd like to compare with my Ivy Bridge system with the optimizations from mesa-dev.

                    Comment

                    Previous 1 2 template Next
                    Working...
                    X