Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 58

Thread: Is Antergos Arch Linux Really Faster Than Ubuntu, Fedora?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    24

    Default

    I use Arch as my main distro, but if it was maximum efficiency and speed I wanted, Gentoo would be the distro to do it, not Arch (although Arch is very nicely configured out of the box, I love it's default kernel settings)

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mir3x View Post
    Last time i checked phoronix test suite - it tested THE SAME binaries between systems, so xonotic from arch and xonotic from ubuntu are the same ... those tests are far far from decent ...
    That really depends on the test. Some are compiled at runtime others are "oob" precompiled blobs. To really test distro vs distro one has to use the same benchmark utilizing the distro's precompiled libraries.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Outthere, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Thank you Michael for the article

    And thank you 'guy' who provided the 'tweaking' guides for openSuse and Arch.

    I'm curious, would the tweaking guides, if applied to both all testing systems fairly, yield differant results, or same?

    Anyway, I got my own hardware to test on and Michael and Co have some software to test with.

    rabcor

    I use Arch as my main distro, but if it was maximum efficiency and speed I wanted, Gentoo would be the distro to do it, not Arch (although Arch is very nicely configured out of the box, I love it's default kernel settings)
    It was my impression that Arch was always that one level of nerdiness below Gentoo. It alllowed for simultaneous simple package management and source compiling with tweaks when and where you wanted, and that was the plan.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    242

    Default

    Arch isn't inherently faster than any Linux system.

    OTOH, a Linux system tuned according to the guides published in the ArchWiki is WAY faster than any other Linux system.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Outthere, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
    Arch isn't inherently faster than any Linux system.

    OTOH, a Linux system tuned according to the guides published in the ArchWiki is WAY faster than any other Linux system.
    Yes, but can the tweaks to Arch be applied to any other distro's, and will they perform similarly. Truly reproducible, or is Arch doing some 'magic faerie dust' things to their binaries before comilation that is opening up feature's for more tweaking?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxFaiT View Post
    So I totally get the "defaults" approach to benchmarking. Being able to reproduce the results is, in fact, the cornerstone of benchmarking. But the issue here is that Arch is not about "defaults" its about doing it yourself and adding all the tweaks and mods you want. This is why Phoronix went with Antergos, to get some defaults. But I think the best way to go about it would be if somebody (somewhat knowledgeable) took his offer and posted the tweaks they would do in detail.
    At the end of the day though, I use Arch because of the documentation, Aur, package management, and rolling release. I don't claim any "magic" speed improvement. However, the nature of Arch makes it easy to strip down (or simply not install in the first place) a lot of the overhead most other distros install to appeal to as many people as possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Article, duh
    For those that will then say "the results are invalid because you didn't tune the system properly" or "you should have done XXX first", my response to which is assuming the distribution defaults given that's what a majority of users will do in the real-world and is the only way for the results to be reproducible and meaningful to any large number of users. For those that insist on tweaked system results, my offer still stands of having such ardent users put together a Wiki page or forum thread that extensively details all the recommended tunables for achieving maximum performance, etc. I'll happily follow such run for a separate article to see the performance impact made and then at least allows the community to evaluate the options and understand all of the tweaks being made so that they too can reproduce them. That really is my offer and belief for any topic, just not about Arch Linux, and from there it's easy to determine who is just blowing hot air.
    I hope that wasn't ignored on the article, provide Michael a how-to "of your magicals ultra super mega l33t tweakzzzz fo your moaning pleasure" so he can actually run this again and show how fast Arch can and really is. Well, obviously, also the LinuxFaiT comment was pretty much the only response regarding this.


    (I am an Arch user, and I think pretty much the same thing, default settings is how do you show the distro to the world, anything else is obviously let a the user choice, but if you don't show the true strenght of Arch, the distro wouldn't be chosen because anything else)

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akincer View Post
    It's been at least a year since I last gave Arch a whirl, but I did NOT find this to be the case. At all. I'm not a Linux noob and have run and managed various distros for quite a few years. But my experience in building a highly functional desktop from scratch is non-existent, so that's what I set out to do with Arch and turned to the documentation to assist me in this.

    To call that experience frustrating would be too kind. I'm not quite sure what I'd call it, but the one thing I can say is that the documentation for building what I'd call a highly functional desktop was nearly worthless. And I tried browsing the Wiki directly and Googling thirty ways from Sunday. I was not impressed with the results.

    Maybe in the last year or two the documentation on this has made leaps and bounds, but if not then I'd call it a dismal failure for what seems like a very ordinary task someone might want to accomplish.

    FWIW -- I tried finding documentation on building a highly function desktop using both GNOME and XFCE. IIRC, the XFCE documentation was light years better than the GNOME, but both were absurdly incomplete.
    I have to agree with kaprikawn that the documentation is the best in the Linux world and really do not understand how you encountered problems. I jumped to Arch on my main system because the Arch Wiki had already become my go-to source for Linux information.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    I have to agree with kaprikawn that the documentation is the best in the Linux world and really do not understand how you encountered problems. I jumped to Arch on my main system because the Arch Wiki had already become my go-to source for Linux information.
    Me, too. I use Gentoo, but many a time have gentoo forums pointed to the Arch Wiki documentation. I've never found a wiki that I didn't think was thorough in the different configuration settings and they often include some "gotchas"/"issues I experienced" in their wikis. Definitely my go to place for information.

    I also agree with many of the comments in this thread - the reason people choose to use Gentoo/Arch is to have the ability to configure their system to how they like it and squeeze some extra performance via compile flags and/or package configuration settings. If you installed the same kernel/drm/mesa stack on Ubuntu as what was used on Arch, you'd probably discover that the performance difference is nigh neglible.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    19

    Default

    I have been arch user for years, but switched to kubuntu from last year, because i didnt have time to resolve all the issues arch had while switching to systemd, for my own system.

    Anyways. I think main advantage on arch is the amazing ABS which helps you build fast and easily the missing packaged or install experimental or newest version of software without depency hell that example you can come across with ubuntu etc.



    What comes to different Graphics performance. I think they are pretty equal if you run KDE or GNOME or what ever desktop which will eat your resources.

    Anyways the advantages for arch being fast comes from ABS in my opinion.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stiiixy View Post
    Thank you Michael for the article

    And thank you 'guy' who provided the 'tweaking' guides for openSuse and Arch.

    I'm curious, would the tweaking guides, if applied to both all testing systems fairly, yield differant results, or same?

    Anyway, I got my own hardware to test on and Michael and Co have some software to test with.
    no problem... your question is a bit confusing, but do you mean different systems [as in Linux OSes], on the same H/W? ... you'd probably get mixed results.
    Iit would depend on a lot of stuff. Some times X distro is shipping bug, regression, etc in a lib or app, while Y distro has already patched it. Or maybe they have slightly different toolchains, etc..

    Quote Originally Posted by stiiixy View Post
    It was my impression that Arch was always that one level of nerdiness below Gentoo. It alllowed for simultaneous simple package management and source compiling with tweaks when and where you wanted, and that was the plan.
    For me, that was a big factor in switching to Arch [one of a few]. Having the main repos with binaries, the Arch Rollback machine [database of previously built binaries, going back quite far], the ability to have a ports-like system for building from sources was quite appealing; easily rolling your own packages, adding patches, etc... plus, i was spending so much time at Arch's wiki pages anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by stiiixy View Post
    Yes, but can the tweaks to Arch be applied to any other distro's, and will they perform similarly. Truly reproducible, or is Arch doing some 'magic faerie dust' things to their binaries before comilation that is opening up feature's for more tweaking?
    most tweaks are portable. same stuff really. Definitely no magic faerie dust

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •