Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by hax0r View Post
    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.
    They eat babies, too.

    Comment


    • #32
      Great to see Unigine pretty much the same between the two OS's, especially considering Linux has no real quality development put into the graphics side of things.

      These tests show that Linux is maturing in the gaming and graphics. We are in a great period where opportunity for game makers opened up by mobile Linux devices prominence. Linux has a special placing in mobile area that Microsoft can't meet any time soon. People simply don't want Windows Mobile 7, or other operating system that are limited and suppressive. Apple is the only exceptions to this rule as they are attracting people who are buying an fashion image, not so much computing.

      All Linux fields should be dedicating all their emphasis on graphics drivers, 3d standards, and quality of use, or the opportunity will be lost.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by hax0r View Post
        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.
        That was a good one...

        Comment


        • #34
          Value (Steam) know that Linux is the next big money area. If they get in now they dominate professional mobile gaming.

          Comment


          • #35
            Excellent job. I imagine you had the pain of actually using windows 7 during development and testing, so kudos to surviving it too.

            Benchmarking vs windows is always good to put things in perspective.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by hax0r View Post
              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.
              Thanks for the objective analysis backed up by repeatable tests and benchmarks.

              Comment


              • #37
                Michael,

                You should think about including some subjective tests every now and then. Many 3D sites do this, capturing particular frames using different cards, since FPS doesn't always equate to quality.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by yesterday View Post
                  Michael,

                  You should think about including some subjective tests every now and then. Many 3D sites do this, capturing particular frames using different cards, since FPS doesn't always equate to quality.
                  PTS already does this, just the Windows profiles for them are not yet implemented.
                  Michael Larabel
                  http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Interesting piece...

                    Can't help but notice the P4X system seems to have a severe CPU-bottleneck, at least in those benchmarks. The extra core doesn't do much good there, does it?

                    One thing I miss though, is maybe a short summary of the in-game settings used for those who have never used PTS.

                    @Michael, on page 3:
                    The Clarkdale system was playable at 800 x 600 through 1280 x 1024 with Nexuiz, but even at 800 x 600, the open-source Intel graphics driver used by Ubuntu 10.04 LTS put out just six frames per second.
                    Shouldn't it read "through 1280x1024 with Windows"?

                    And page 1, I think the "it's already running" link should be placed after the "Steam client" one, really

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      One thing that is definitely missing is a DX run of the tests. OGL vs OGL is fine to have as well but to give a clear x vs y comparison a DX run should have been ran since that is what most windows gamers utilize.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Especially if one wants to "hopefully dispel all sorts of myths and FUD".

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          The chart colours for CI7 on the X-Plane chart (page 9) are around the wrong way.

                          I'm also irked that one can't compare between CPUs (to help make a purchase decisions for future CPUs/video cards) as the memory amount and video card changes for each system.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            One other thing I would suggest, especially on the gaming tests is to run them with sound enabled as this could have measurable effects on game play.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by hax0r View Post
                              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.
                              It's only better in 2D and maybe in 3D. You should rather say GUI latency/responsiveness, because Linux kernel is much more responsive. Windows DE sucks because it's not as half feature rich as KDE (I know you're a Gnome troll, so I'm not surprised why did you said this). Windows is not memory efficient - my 32 bit XP consumed more memory then my 64bit Arch Linux (I couldn't believe!), I can only imagine how amount of memory Windows 7 consumes. It's slow (except graphics).

                              Scheduler performance (average, worse):

                              Linux: 0.009mS 0.3mS
                              Windows: 2mS scheduling latency 16mS

                              http://widefox.pbworks.com/Scheduler#Timeslice

                              Windows looks like a big, fat cow. If you cannot backup what you said just be a nice troll and be quiet, please.

                              Originally posted by Remco View Post
                              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."?
                              It's sad the title is misleading and introduction is very irritating. The newest graphic drivers were tested (which have different versions!) and not the ones which are parts of both systems(?), so the tittle "Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04" sounds misleading. Introduction sounds fuddish too, because those performance differences are rather because of differences in graphic drivers which were used and not because of Ext4 or "kernel getting bloated, because its package is big". At least, the last page is free of marketing talk.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I would like to see a benchmark using EXT 4 on a spinning platter hard drive... It seems like all the benchmarks are using SSDs.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X