Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 12.04 vs. Windows 7: Intel Sandy/Ivy Bridge Loses On Linux

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

  • Ubuntu 12.04 vs. Windows 7: Intel Sandy/Ivy Bridge Loses On Linux

    Phoronix: Ubuntu 12.04 vs. Windows 7: Intel Sandy/Ivy Bridge Loses On Linux

    Here's a comparison of the Ubuntu 12.04 LTS versus Microsoft Windows 7 performance when it comes to using Intel Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors with integrated graphics. While the Sandy Bridge graphics performance was once faster when it came to OpenGL with the open-source Linux driver, that's no longer the case. The Linux OpenGL performance for both Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge hardware is now slower in most GL workloads than Intel's Windows 7 x64 driver.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17314

  • #2
    The Intel OTC developers are certainly interested in improving the situation, and I have already gotten them eloped with Valve.
    Well, that's good news.

    Comment


    • #3
      Perhaps these results would be more encouraging if the results from last year were shown. Also, I'd like to have seen something other than Ubuntu performing the tests. Wasn't Unity one of the worst performers of all DEs, including KDE?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
        Perhaps these results would be more encouraging if the results from last year were shown. Also, I'd like to have seen something other than Ubuntu performing the tests. Wasn't Unity one of the worst performers of all DEs, including KDE?
        Good points made.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
          Perhaps these results would be more encouraging if the results from last year were shown. Also, I'd like to have seen something other than Ubuntu performing the tests. Wasn't Unity one of the worst performers of all DEs, including KDE?
          Most of the recent Linux users who switched over approximately 3 years ago or earlier are very likely to be using these heavyweight + feature-heavy DEs, and not lightweight / minimalist DEs such as LXDE or XFCE, or even barebones window managers such as OpenBox, TWM, Fluxbox etc etc.

          Benching on heavy DEs such as Gnome 3, Unity and KDE 4 will offer the closest 'real-world scenario' results as opposed to doing the tests on a minimalist window manager. People want to see how much they can expect from Linux under a typical desktop load that consists of a flashy DE with compositing enabled, and not some 'best-case scenario' where everything is done off an unaccelerated window manager.

          Same reason why power users and enthusiasts in Windows run those ridiculously heavy benching tools such as PCMark, 3DMark, FurMark etc etc with full Windows Aero effects enabled instead of falling back to the simple Win 2000-style Classic theme.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
            Most of the recent Linux users who switched over approximately 3 years ago or earlier are very likely to be using these heavyweight + feature-heavy DEs, and not lightweight / minimalist DEs such as LXDE or XFCE, or even barebones window managers such as OpenBox, TWM, Fluxbox etc etc.

            Benching on heavy DEs such as Gnome 3, Unity and KDE 4 will offer the closest 'real-world scenario' results as opposed to doing the tests on a minimalist window manager. People want to see how much they can expect from Linux under a typical desktop load that consists of a flashy DE with compositing enabled, and not some 'best-case scenario' where everything is done off an unaccelerated window manager.

            Same reason why power users and enthusiasts in Windows run those ridiculously heavy benching tools such as PCMark, 3DMark, FurMark etc etc with full Windows Aero effects enabled instead of falling back to the simple Win 2000-style Classic theme.
            That is absolutely true and I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that Michael probably uses Ubuntu as the standard reference linux distro (kinda like how you use distilled water as the reference for finding acidity, temperature, reactivity, and so on due to it being of the most common compounds) however, Ubuntu is no longer the most used distro - Mint is, and Mint doesn't use Unity.

            I was aware of your comment before I even posted my first one, so the reason I posted it in the first place was because Ubuntu (and unity for that matter) are not the "standard" anymore, and because Unity and KDE performed notably worse than all other DEs, including the composited ones such as GNOME 3. That extra performance loss is about how much Linux lagged behind Windows, more or less.

            Comment


            • #7
              The Intel OTC developers are certainly interested in improving the situation, and I have already gotten them eloped with Valve.
              Intel is out of the game when comes to gaming. AMD or nVidia comparison will be much more interesting.

              http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...w,3121-21.html

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                Ubuntu is no longer the most used distro - Mint is, and Mint doesn't use Unity.
                Are you getting yours stats from distro watch viewrings? Every survay i have seen sayes mit is rising but fare aways from overtaking.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                  Most of the recent Linux users who switched over approximately 3 years ago or earlier are very likely to be using these heavyweight + feature-heavy DEs, and not lightweight / minimalist DEs such as LXDE or XFCE, or even barebones window managers such as OpenBox, TWM, Fluxbox etc etc.

                  Benching on heavy DEs such as Gnome 3, Unity and KDE 4 will offer the closest 'real-world scenario' results as opposed to doing the tests on a minimalist window manager. People want to see how much they can expect from Linux under a typical desktop load that consists of a flashy DE with compositing enabled, and not some 'best-case scenario' where everything is done off an unaccelerated window manager.

                  Same reason why power users and enthusiasts in Windows run those ridiculously heavy benching tools such as PCMark, 3DMark, FurMark etc etc with full Windows Aero effects enabled instead of falling back to the simple Win 2000-style Classic theme.
                  That's certanly true, but since you're expected to run those games fullscreen, nothing stops you from running them into a separate X server, that allows you to just forget about how heavy is your DE, other than offering the ability to switch between it and the game itself without worries and being a safer choice (imagine a crash of the X server where you're playing)

                  Of course, it is uncommon, but if the user is free to choose, having those benchmarks takes into account that scenario too would be very helpfull.

                  However, depsite the fact that into the post Michael seems to be comparing just the drivers, in the title he clearly states it is comparing "Ubuntu" to Windows, so considering the default DE settings makes some sense.

                  It would have been different if it was comparing the driver code... exclusively.

                  https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...arate_X_server
                  Last edited by kokoko3k; 05-02-2012, 12:34 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If the tests are launched from the desktop and with unity it's not so bad for Intel linux, but it will be far more interesting to see (for me) the result without compiz running, or did I miss something ?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ubuntu 12.04 vs. Windows 7: Intel Sandy/Ivy Bridge Loses On Linux
                      I read through the article and the only loser that I was able to find was Michael.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Games on Windows

                        That's the funny thing about Windows. It's not lightweight. It never has been. It always tends to err on the side of too much. Many of it's features are only available on "heavy" DE's, and it still has some features that haven't made it to any Linux DE yet.

                        And because of that, Windows has rightfully earned a reputation as "bloated". But, despite that, games always seemed to be able to draw out far, far better results than on Linux. Back in the olden days, when I was still running XP, I got the impression that when a game runs, it sort of "shuts down" everything else. But, that has never been the case on Linux.

                        Personally, I think the difference might have something to do with the way that the Linux kernel was written with respect to Windows. Windows started as a "single user" system. Where there is basically only one user that does all kinds of things on the system, whereas Linux is multiple-user system, where it assigns processes to different users like "Bob" or "Claire" or "Root". The multiple user system has a fantastic amount of advantages. Advantages in security, in the way the filesystem evolved to not need defragmentation, etc. But, I think that the Windows approach might give it the edge when it comes to games.

                        When you click on "Nexuiz" on Linux, it's the user that's logged in, that is starting those processes. But, from the computer's perspective, "Bob" could very well just be a snot-nosed kid that the system administrator (root) doesn't trust at all. So nothing that "Bob" can click on, should be allowed to mess around with the system processes. So it might be that on Windows it's a case of: [Bob: "Computer, I am want to play a game now, you can finish the other things you're doing later." whereas on Linux is more a case of: [PC: "Bob, you are not allowed to interupt the apt-get dist-upgrade process or stop Claire's download, but here's a game you're allowed to run in whatever resources are left."]

                        At least, that's my own hypothesis... It could just be a case of the Windows sector having more money to pump into developing drivers. But, it would have been very interesting to see what Windows does when it launches a game, if the source code was available.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          SABAYON & ARCH and 1000 Hz or real time kernels

                          Ubuntu is the most used distro - Mint is ubuntu with some adds -

                          But it is not the best in performance.

                          It would be helpful to add to the mix SABAYON - 1000 Hz kernel in Sabayon vs 300 Hz in MS WOS and 100 Hz in Ubuntu -

                          This articles explains how to compile Ubuntu 64 bits kernel at 1000 Hz or "real time kernel" for better playing

                          http://duopetalflower.blogspot.com.e...it-kernel.html
                          http://www.linuxerz.org/2011/08/kernel-rt-debian/

                          ARCH is also an almost Rolling Release distro that a lot of Linux advanced users like to use.

                          Ubuntu default kernel is not make for gaming, making this benchmark this way is a bad favour you make to yourself.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Lol, Arch? Sabayon? How about pure, 100% Gentoo?

                            The benchmarks would mean something for comparisons the system it runs on. Doubt Michael wants to spend that much time on perfection, though.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by StephanG View Post
                              Personally, I think the difference might have something to do with the way that the Linux kernel was written with respect to Windows. Windows started as a "single user" system. Where there is basically only one user that does all kinds of things on the system, whereas Linux is multiple-user system, where it assigns processes to different users like "Bob" or "Claire" or "Root".
                              Windows as a single user system ended with Windows ME, XP onwared (based on Windows NT) are alle multi user systems from the core. Also when Windows decides that it is time to index your files you can just sit happily alog for the ride. Not only that but while your are playing a game it might decide that it wants to update and then restart your computer with out actually warning you.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X