Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 90

Thread: Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Mac OS X 10.5.6 Benchmarks

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,057

    Default

    Drag, your post is very well written and enlightening but it doesn't change Yfrwlf's statement. As far as I have seen ext3 even in its writeback form is slower than ext4 and, indeed, more tests should take place.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    Drag, your post is very well written and enlightening but it doesn't change Yfrwlf's statement. As far as I have seen ext3 even in its writeback form is slower than ext4 and, indeed, more tests should take place.
    It wasn't really ment to countradict anything he was saying.

    It's just one of the reasons why SQLite performance is lousy on a Linux desktop.

    And it's should be that Ext3 is slower then Ext4. A lot of effort was put into making Ext4 fast...

    As far as more benchmarks.. that should be easy. We have easy access to the Phoronix test suite.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    10

    Default

    There's a problem in these benchmarks.
    Mac OSX is designed to run on SSE3 processor, so gcc is optimising the assembly code to work only on SSE3 processor. Especially, sse is used for math computation, which is about 3 times faster than x87 which is the default on i386 linux.
    A fair benchmark could be Mac OSX vs x86_64 linux. Because gcc on x86_64 is optimising by default for SSE2 processor, and using SSE for math computation.

    My 2 cents

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    As far as more benchmarks.. that should be easy. We have easy access to the Phoronix test suite.
    Haha true, true... soon when I'll get my newer puter I'll spent lots of hours to test my gentoo system

    Quote Originally Posted by Rip-Rip;
    There's a problem in these benchmarks.
    Mac OSX is designed to run on SSE3 processor, so gcc is optimising the assembly code to work only on SSE3 processor. Especially, sse is used for math computation, which is about 3 times faster than x87 which is the default on i386 linux.
    A fair benchmark could be Mac OSX vs x86_64 linux. Because gcc on x86_64 is optimising by default for SSE2 processor, and using SSE for math computation.

    My 2 cents
    Don't worry, Michael promised that soon we will have a 64 bit benchamrk as well
    Last edited by Apopas; 05-14-2009 at 05:42 PM.

  5. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    Don't worry, Michael promised that soon we will have a 64 bit benchamrk as well
    I'm starting to worry now. What we saw was very good Macos advertisement. Ubuntu 32 bit and slow Ext 3 (when compared to Ext 4) vs Macos with 64 bit capabilities and fs which buffers writes... Many portals will copy this benchmark and many people will buy it. I sometimes wonder if apple keeps its dirty hands on Phoronix?

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,111

    Default

    Based on the fact Michael had to buy his own Mac Mini, and if I remember right the cheapest one at that, I doubt Apple had anything to do with it.

    Once we start seeing some Mac Pro benchmarks with dual quad Xeons, that's when we need to start worrying

  7. #77
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Based on the fact Michael had to buy his own Mac Mini, and if I remember right the cheapest one at that, I doubt Apple had anything to do with it.

    Once we start seeing some Mac Pro benchmarks with dual quad Xeons, that's when we need to start worrying
    There already is MacPro benches in PTS Global. Even some G5 stuff.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,057

    Default

    It is true that this paragraph from the conclusion of that benchmark is extremely positive for Apple and totally negative for Ubuntu:
    Overall, Mac OS X 10.5.6 already outpaces Ubuntu 9.04 when it comes to many respects of the desktop and server performance. With the introduction of Mac OS X 10.6.0 "Snow Leopard" in a few months, the Apple gains will likely widen considering the efforts they are putting forth on improving the performance via a smaller memory footprint, OpenCL, etc. The graphics performance in Ubuntu 9.10, which will be out after the release of Mac OS X 10.6, may improve with Intel working to fix its regressions and Gallium3D could be enabled in time. Beyond improving the graphics performance and potentially some minor performance improvements thanks to an updated Linux kernel (well, a big improvement in SQLite unless they regress again) and the newer GCC 4.4 series, we would not anticipate the Ubuntu 9.10 performance to be drastically different.
    while the next days we saw that 9.10 alpha was significantly faster that 9.04.
    Imho Michael should emphasize that this was the 32 bit version of Ubuntu and truth to be told there was not any difference between this one and the benchmark that took place 1 year ago. Back then MacOSX was even faster than 32 bit Ubuntu but slower than 64 bit. So he should have said "stay tuned, till 64 bit benchmarks are out to actually see if MacOSX took indeed the lead"!
    Personally, with a clear install and ext4 I anticipate the gap between 64 bit Ubuntu and MacOSX to be even bigger than the previous one because the 32 bit gap now is lower than the previous one.
    Maybe he was just lazy to try 64bit Ubuntu, but yes this unfair benchmark will work for Apple's favour finally

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto/North Bay Canada
    Posts
    877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    I'm starting to worry now. What we saw was very good Macos advertisement. Ubuntu 32 bit and slow Ext 3 (when compared to Ext 4) vs Macos with 64 bit capabilities and fs which buffers writes... Many portals will copy this benchmark and many people will buy it. I sometimes wonder if apple keeps its dirty hands on Phoronix?
    lol first of all some serious fudging occured in the benchmarks, we all know this and you acknowledged that.

    Whats the end result? perhaps something similar to this by apple:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...e/default.mspx

    Unfortunately, Anyone with half a brain can tell that this is a load of BS. The movers and shakers are knowledgeable enough to compare apples to apples.

    I dont think apple is stupid enough to make the same mistake microshaft made here. I wonder how many millions Microsoft paid for this pointless ad campaign XD.

  10. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    lol first of all some serious fudging occured in the benchmarks, we all know this and you acknowledged that.

    Whats the end result? perhaps something similar to this by apple:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...e/default.mspx

    Unfortunately, Anyone with half a brain can tell that this is a load of BS. The movers and shakers are knowledgeable enough to compare apples to apples.

    I dont think apple is stupid enough to make the same mistake microshaft made here. I wonder how many millions Microsoft paid for this pointless ad campaign XD.
    I don't know if apple is as stupid as ms, but I already saw many noobs which believe this FUD :/ If you type 9.04 vs macos in Google you'll see many sites which mindlessly copied this comparision... Michael can proof Ubuntu outperforms Macos, but it seems he's not interested.

Posting Permissions

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