Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 96

Thread: Ubuntu 7.04 to 8.10 Benchmarks: Is Ubuntu Getting Slower?

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Awesome.... NOT.

    I don't need a test to prove the difference between my first distro, Ubuntu 7.04, and my worst distro, Ubuntu 8.04. The difference is HUGE on my P4 2.66GHz machine with 256MB DDR1 400MHz ram and GMA 900 onboard graphics, where ubuntu 7.04 was the best thing ever.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13

    Default

    As you can see Hardy was really a bit slow in comparison to Gutsy. But you can see that Intrepid is faster than Hardy, which implies that Ubuntu is not getting slower all the time.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hannover
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beleriand View Post
    Hello!

    to show the contrary to Phoronix results I did same testing on my own computer with different Ubuntus.
    Your tests only show, that your machine is slow for an 1.92 GHz processor. There is an MP3 encoding on a 1.99GHz Athlon, which is nearby twice as fast as yours. I know is not really comparable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beleriand View Post
    Hello!
    As you can see, the trend of the Phoronix results can not be affirmed. Some of them even show Ubuntu is getting faster!
    I can see the same trends in your test. The "Bandwidth 0.13" test losses 25% speed. And audio encoding takes longer, on intrepid. The differences are not as big as in the phoronix test, but your machine is much slower. Your memory bandwidth is only 1300MB/s compared to 3300MB/s.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    107

    Default

    I have found that ETQW performs worse since Ubuntu Hardy (Intrepid is the worst performer in Linux with this game) FPS stays very low (on Lenny I get more FPS but there are slowdowns), and Intrepid "included" nvidia driver (177.80) has graphical glitches that don't appear when installing the driver manually.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hannover
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beleriand View Post
    As you can see Hardy was really a bit slow in comparison to Gutsy. But you can see that Intrepid is faster than Hardy, which implies that Ubuntu is not getting slower all the time.
    The problem exists since gusty or 2.6.20 kernel. I don't have made any phoronix tests, but my system become slow with gusty. Intrepid is reaches an awful responsiveness. Try to copy a big file or to install some apps and working with gimp, firefox or even gedit. Using disc intensive application is an horror since gutsy.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hannover
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marakaid View Post
    I have found that ETQW performs worse since Ubuntu Hardy (Intrepid is the worst performer in Linux with this game) FPS stays very low (on Lenny I get more FPS but there are slowdowns),
    Have you some data? Is it like 80 -> 40 or 80 -> 70 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by marakaid View Post
    and Intrepid "included" nvidia driver (177.80) has graphical glitches that don't appear when installing the driver manually.
    That's another thing. Intrepid is using the xorg 1.5 server. The driver should be nearby beta status. Perhaps there are some more fixes in the official driver?

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Philadelphia PA USA
    Posts
    11

    Default

    I would be interested to see a benchmark comparison between Ubuntu and Debian. There is no question that Debian runs lighter and faster than Ubuntu. This would be the litmus test for just how bloated Ubuntu really is.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    64

    Default

    I'm currently running the audio-enconding tests of the test suite on a Thinkpad R31 (P-3 1GHz, 512MB RAM) on Ubuntu 8.10 and the tests that are finished (LAME, OGG, FLAC) are only ~10% lower than the numbers Phoronix got for their T60.

    The T60 has a Core2Duo with 1.87Ghz, it should be twice as fast as a P-3 with 1GHz. Remember the scores for the audio-tests are in seconds!

    Code:
           R31         T60
    LAME  133.07s    120.83s
    OGG   84.40s     69.81s
    FLAC  62.13s     56.19s
    Does now someone believe that the numbers Phoronix got for its T60 and Ubuntu 8.10 can't be right?

    P.S :

    I will upload the complete results when the tests are finished and post the link here in the forum.

    Edit :

    The complete results can be found here :

    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...14-14176-26881
    Last edited by glasen; 10-31-2008 at 10:34 AM.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13

    Default

    I also have 2 more tests (see my post on page 8 for more).

    computational
    gtkperf TotalTime

    As you might criticize, theres some difference in screen resolutions.
    This should not affect the computational result but maybe the gtkperf a bit. I will proof later that its not a big issue.

    Furthermore I re-emphasize that I believe that something went wrong with the Phoronix test on audio-encoding. I wait in suspense for results on ohter platforms.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    42

    Default

    This is all just a trick to get us to use Phoronix's benchmarking tool and prove them wrong.

Posting Permissions

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