Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    That's where windows should pwn Linux? In graphics? As far as I see Ubuntu is about equal with windows and in some tests it has the upper hand.
    Very interesting is the Unigine Sanctuary demo which shows the similar capabilities of both systems.
    As far as I have seen also, Fedora was over 50% faster than Ubuntu 9.10 with NVidia drivers.
    All these make me to think, how could windows stand against Fedora, or even better against Gentoo? LOL

    Comment


    • #17
      We need some Haiku benchmarks

      Comment


      • #18
        Nice benchmarks, although I wish there was a UT2004 test instead of OpenArena, since there already is Urban Terror which is ioquake3, and the results of OpenArena just go off the scale (I don't think the quake3 engine was built to support FPS that are even over 600 as you can see here - most engines of that time, like Unreal Engine 1, use cpu clock-related timings so high FPS doesn't really mean more than looking at glgears information), while Unreal Engine 2 is still pretty popular in games, such as BioShock 2. And UT2004 is supported on both platforms.

        That aside, I'm glad that AMD ATI drivers are pretty much identical between Linux and Windows, especially on higher resolutions. Knowing how many resources are put towards Windows development of the drivers, I'm pretty surprised it went that well. That signifies that with proper native game ports (when needed), the games would play just as well on both platforms!

        Also worth noting that there were gaming benchmarks carried out by Stat64 if I remember correctly, and they show that Windows 7 performs better in pretty much every game tested than Windows XP x64 (which is based on the newer Windows 2003 kernel code than the ordinary Windows XP), and seeing the statistics, Windows XP is still the most used Windows OS, so that would mean that Linux is faster in gaming than Windows XP. Of course, real benchmarks of that would be nice as well. ...in fact, why don't I just do that, after all I can just get PTS as well

        Comment


        • #19
          Table

          The table from page 4 is buggy.

          Comment


          • #20
            Next was our X-Plane 9 testing courtesy of Laminar Research. As can be gathered from the results straight lines, this test is rather GPU limited with its high quality settings.
            Don't mean to nitpick too much, but did you mean to say that this test was CPU limited? Flat FPS lines at varying resolutions would seem to indicate to me that the CPU was the bottleneck and not the GPU.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Veerappan View Post
              Don't mean to nitpick too much, but did you mean to say that this test was CPU limited? Flat FPS lines at varying resolutions would seem to indicate to me that the CPU was the bottleneck and not the GPU.
              Yeah, typo, fixed. Thanks.
              Michael Larabel
              http://www.michaellarabel.com/

              Comment


              • #22
                The green-red highlight is buggy in some tables, starting from the Nexuiz table on page 3.

                Comment


                • #23
                  "Nothing (new) to see here. Move along, move along..."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Also, did Phoronix go down because of this article? There was ~20min when I couldn't access, some hours after the article went live.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by curaga View Post
                      Also, did Phoronix go down because of this article? There was ~20min when I couldn't access, some hours after the article went live.
                      No, it was unrelated to this article, but all services should be back to normal.
                      Michael Larabel
                      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
                        Slackware might work, but I don't see how it's any more representative of Linux (let alone desktop Linux) than Ubuntu is.
                        Slackware's kernel, drivers and packages are mainline vanilla ones without any Slackware-specific patches. Plus, the kernel configuration options are tuned for performance. Ubuntu is heavily patched. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing or that Ubuntu is a bad OS. I'm just saying that it's not truely Linux. And run the command "zcat /proc/config.gz" on both Ubuntu and Slackware. You'll find that there's lot more bloat in Ubuntu's kernel than Slackware's.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by BhaKi View Post
                          The article is only a Ubuntu vs Windows comparison, not Linux vs Windows. Ubuntu does not represent Linux. If you want to compare performance of Windows and Linux, you should choose Linux From Scratch (LFS) or Slackware.
                          Linux is what Linux users use, and like it's mentioned in the article most Linux installations are Ubuntu.

                          If you are so eager to criticise, find time to carry out these tests on your own on either Gentoo or LFS.

                          But then we will argue vehemently about the GCC flags which have to be used in order to compile those two distros.

                          Ubuntu is an established Linux distro. If you don't understand it, or don't like this fact, please, do not comment here and please, refrain from reading Phoronix articles.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by grumelude View Post
                            Despite Linux graphical drivers have improved a lot in last years, Windows graphical performance is still the stronget aspect of Windows platform. Maybe that's because this aspect has been worked for years in Windows and Linux graphical system and drivers have to walk this way as well. Hopefully in two years we can talk about the opposite result! :-)
                            I thought the conclusion was that Windows and Ubuntu were pretty much the same, with some wins for Windows and some wins for Ubuntu. Michael actually says so specifically. On the last page, he quotes a myth that has been busted. Maybe he should have explicitly said "This is clearly false; the performance is pretty much the same."?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I'm actually encouraged by these tests. Ubuntu actually was ahead of Win7 in a few of the cases and generally was not that far behind, Intel graphics notwithstanding, but if you have an Intel graphics chip you're not going to be doing any serious gaming anyway. In many of the tests Ubuntu was ahead at low res settings where it was more CPU driven then fell behind at high res settings. This tells me that regardless of how far nVidia and ATI have come with their Linux drivers, they are still inferior to their Windows counterparts, which is something I think most of us knew already.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Windows is still a lot better for desktop, where latency and GUI response matters. There's is no good DE today, none of them are optimized or are memory efficient. They're are slow, featureless, and they suck.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X