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

                    Working...
                    X