Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mac OS X 10.6.3 vs. Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 10.04 Benchmarks

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Enrox View Post
    A benchmark I would love to see: Photoshop CS5 on OS X and Windows 7... you know... real stuff that matters
    Doesn't run on Linux, thus doesn't matter, thus moot point :P

    Comment


    • #32
      Hi,
      Can you guys run some test with and without compiz enabled? From my and others experiences this can lead to great performance differences in OpenGL games. Especially in wine - as I heard that you want to test wine performance too

      Comment


      • #33
        Sluggish performance in 3d with Mac OSX?
        Fix: Increase the resolution

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          I'd like to see some encoding, decoding, unpacking, compressing, computation benchmarks. Speed of creating, deleting, copying files, directories. This is what's important on desktops IMHO.
          Btw. it will be interesting to see how BFS performs in such tasks too, but I know all of this takes much of time. Maybe just some quick run in the near future?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Enrox View Post
            Vista-bashing in 2010 is quite pathetic.
            Games on Vista get about the same FPS as XP or Windows 7, sometimes more sometimes less but overall it's the same.
            Same or not maybe there are dudes aroubd who would love to see proof of that.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Apopas View Post
              Same or not maybe there are dudes aroubd who would love to see proof of that.
              Here you go:

              http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=...99b07aefa0d9cc

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                interesting...

                Comment


                • #38
                  The early DX10 drivers that came out with Vista were poorly optimized and the reason a lot of people still think gaming on Vista is slow. If you stick a recent driver on Vista it runs about the same as Win7 (the Vista service packs also helped a lot)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    On the Server results could be worse
                    And let it be worse

                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    I'd like to see some encoding, decoding, unpacking, compressing, computation benchmarks. Speed of creating, deleting, copying files, directories. This is what's important on desktops IMHO.
                    Up do a certain point. To be 10-20% faster or slower in file operations doesn't make any difference on a client, if you need performances you won't get them replacing the OS... but simply replacing the hardware.
                    Do you need to read or to write at 250 MB/s or more? Just get a couple of SSDs in raid 0. End of story.

                    Computation benchmarks? It's just a CPU bound issue, what could you expect? A 50% difference between Ubuntu and Windows? No way, it might end up to less then 5%... again, it doesn't make any real difference.

                    Benchmarks are meaningful to compare a new software version to make sure there are no regressions compared to the previous version, doing cross OS benchmarks to figure out who is peeing farthermost is pointless

                    I hope you didn't need Phoronix benchmarks to figure out that GPU drivers are more efficient under Windows 7

                    I would be interested in evaluating specific softwares on different platform to have a overall result of the application software + the operating system. Example: Photoshop on OS X and Windows 7. Not to determine if OS X is better than Windows 7, just to figure out if Photoshop runs better on one of the two OSs. Very likely it won't and it might be just about the same. And anyway, with different software you might get opposite results, just like different GPUs with different games or different resolutions/details levels.

                    At the end of the day I need to get the job done, not to go telling that my OS is 3% faster than the competition

                    So I welcome real user scenario benchmarks of real client software running on client OS... not fake test running server software on a client OS.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                      Same or not maybe there are dudes aroubd who would love to see proof of that.
                      There were plenty of those tests to compare Vista and XP (*)... as soon as nVidia got it's stuff together, Vista scored just a little bit better results than XP... so what's your point? We are in 2010 still flaming on things that were already known in 2008? Come on!


                      (*) Vista users should have been interested in knowing if Vista was doing well against the previous version of Windows... doesn't make any sense to complain if Windows 7 is faster!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by curaga View Post
                        Doesn't run on Linux, thus doesn't matter, thus moot point :P
                        I see your point: don't compare OSs using what people use in the real world... just compare meaningless things like Apache on Windows 7...

                        Do you get that there might be a reason why on the client Windows is over the 90% of the market share, OS X around the 5% and Linux about 1%?

                        Maybe... because real people do real things with theirs computer and they don't spend the day running benchmarks ... if a OS can't offer on the client what people need... maybe measuring performances of Apache on the client OS instead of using that time to improve the client overall appeal is a humongus waste of time

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                          If you stick a recent driver on Vista it runs about the same as Win7 (the Vista service packs also helped a lot)
                          That's because unchanged Vista GPU drivers work with Win7, there is backward compatibility. To my knowledge the biggest change in Win7 graphics stack is the acceleration of GDI and 2D drawing in general, which was done in software in Vista and that's partially the reason Vista is a lot slower and consumes more memory (every window image was stored in memory twice, once in RAM and once in VRAM for a compositor). I don't think they're gonna change that, the speed of Win7 is one of its main selling points.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Enrox View Post
                            I see your point: don't compare OSs using what people use in the real world... just compare meaningless things like Apache on Windows 7...

                            Do you get that there might be a reason why on the client Windows is over the 90% of the market share, OS X around the 5% and Linux about 1%?

                            Maybe... because real people do real things with theirs computer and they don't spend the day running benchmarks ... if a OS can't offer on the client what people need... maybe measuring performances of Apache on the client OS instead of using that time to improve the client overall appeal is a humongus waste of time
                            Maybe this is a Linux site, with people interested in _Linux_ results. I couldn't care less how Photoshop runs on some closed platform vs another.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Enrox View Post
                              Up do a certain point. To be 10-20% faster or slower in file operations doesn't make any difference on a client, if you need performances you won't get them replacing the OS... but simply replacing the hardware.
                              Wrong. It does a big difference for me and for people I know. I will get performance changing file system, its mount options or simply switching an OS.

                              Do you need to read or to write at 250 MB/s or more? Just get a couple of SSDs in raid 0. End of story.
                              If this can be faster in some OS then I'd choose it.

                              Computation benchmarks? It's just a CPU bound issue, what could you expect? A 50% difference between Ubuntu and Windows? No way, it might end up to less then 5%... again, it doesn't make any real difference.
                              It's not only CPU bound issue, but also compiler and kernel. It does a real difference.

                              Benchmarks are meaningful to compare a new software version to make sure there are no regressions compared to the previous version, doing cross OS benchmarks to figure out who is peeing farthermost is pointless
                              A bull

                              I hope you didn't need Phoronix benchmarks to figure out that GPU drivers are more efficient under Windows 7
                              They're not, but I'd probably need Phoronix benchmarks to figure this out. Ubuntu just ran Compiz which slowed it down. Under KDE kwin effects should be disabled when launching a game, so Kubuntu or another KDE distro (or just disable compiz) should be as fast in games as Windows.

                              At the end of the day I need to get the job done, not to go telling that my OS is 3% faster than the competition
                              Your wishful thinking. On the multi core systems Linux was even few times faster in benchmarks I saw, so buying a new CPU with more cores probably won't help you much using Windows.

                              So I welcome real user scenario benchmarks of real client software running on client OS... not fake test running server software on a client OS.
                              Those tests I mentioned are real ones and they're very important for desktops in my opinion. Following your logic lets benchmark Amarok 2. Oops, Linux has won.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                                They're not, but I'd probably need Phoronix benchmarks to figure this out. Ubuntu just ran Compiz which slowed it down. Under KDE kwin effects should be disabled when launching a game, so Kubuntu or another KDE distro (or just disable compiz) should be as fast in games as Windows.
                                .
                                I hope someone will provide such benchmarks. My experience in gaming on Linux clearly says, that coposite slows down games a lot. I am using KDE, maybe on Compiz it better, but still few percents loss to Windows performance...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X