Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 170

Thread: Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    Ubuntu Linux has kernel that is optimized for servers, which prevents a fair comparison from being done of Linux and Windows.
    Not really sure where you get the idea that Ubuntu's default kernel has been optimized for servers. The kernel configs in Ubuntu are aimed as a multi-role config. It's not optimized specifically for server or desktop use. If you want a "in the can" default desktop kernel take a look at openSUSE where it defaults to a kernel that is "desktop tuned".

  2. #52

    Default

    @Deanjo

    There were slowdowns in Ext4 due to some changes, but this is about scheduler latency. Btw. Phoronix become so unresponsive it's hard to edit a post in time.

  3. #53

    Default

    @Deanjo

    There were slowdowns in Ext4 due to some changes, but this is about scheduler latency. After BFS appeared the CFS became even better. Btw. Phoronix is so unresponsive now it's hard to edit a post in time.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    42

    Default

    The fact is that Linux is at the end of the feeding chain, so don't expect any big FPS in games, that's Windows world. This days will found some morons that will install Ubuntu on 700$+ system that's stupid. Linux can be very good for workstation and cheap one, that's it.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    @Deanjo

    There were slowdowns in Ext4 due to some changes, but this is about scheduler latency. Btw. Phoronix become so unresponsive it's hard to edit a post in time.
    Ya, don't know what is up with the server. But going back the scheduler improvements found in Win 7

    http://blogs.msdn.com/philpenn/archi...rallelism.aspx

    as well as other improvements

    http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...TimerCoal.mspx

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...8VS.85%29.aspx

    These were not present in Vista.

    Of course there are many other factors which effect the end users experience as to what is responsive to them and what is not, such as pulseaudio (or really audio as a whole in linux), power management, graphics, etc etc. Yes I'm aware that most of the regressions come from the Ext4 filesystem but that has to be taken into account when talking about the end user experience.

  6. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Ya, don't know what is up with the server. But going back the scheduler improvements found in Win 7

    http://blogs.msdn.com/philpenn/archi...rallelism.aspx

    as well as other improvements

    http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...TimerCoal.mspx

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...8VS.85%29.aspx

    These were not present in Vista.
    Good to see they're improving, but we don't know how well this improved latencies. While Linux kernel is probably more responsive (there's also RT Linux), more important for desktops are visible latencies which are sometimes caused by slow 2D.

    Of course there are many other factors which effect the end users experience as to what is responsive to them and what is not, such as pulseaudio (or really audio as a whole in linux), power management, graphics, etc etc.
    Yes, sometimes there are problems with this, but it depends on configurations.

    Yes I'm aware that most of the regressions come from the Ext4 filesystem but that has to be taken into account when talking about the end user experience.
    It depends if end users suffer from Ext4 changes, but they/we probably do.

    @Filip007

    The fact is that Linux is at the end of the feeding chain, so don't expect any big FPS in games, that's Windows world. This days will found some morons that will install Ubuntu on 700$+ system that's stupid. Linux can be very good for workstation and cheap one, that's it.
    Linux is also very good for desktops. What's wrong with those FPS numbers (sometimes better then in Windows)? Games are very important for desktops, but there are also other things. Some people even prefer playing under Wine then keeping Windows on a hard drive.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Linux is also very good for desktops. What's wrong with those FPS numbers (sometimes better then in Windows)? Games are very important for desktops, but there are also other things. Some people even prefer playing under Wine then keeping Windows on a hard drive.
    Indeed. If Wine solved their problem with DirectInput that makes more than 360 degree turns in UE-based games impossible, I'd make Linux my first OS. Unfortunately, they are still having trouble with latest XInput versions...

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    510

    Default

    For some reason, some people seem to interpret the results as if Windows has won this benchmark big time. Is this because the title and the intro suggest that Windows might win, and the readers don't bother to read further?

  9. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Remco View Post
    For some reason, some people seem to interpret the results as if Windows has won this benchmark big time. Is this because the title and the intro suggest that Windows might win, and the readers don't bother to read further?
    This is for sure the case

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,146

    Default

    Nice work, Michael!

    The most important results are without doubt those of XPlane, Unigine and SPECviewperf, and Linux makes a strong showing in all. Specific anomalies aside, performance results are very similar to what I am observing in my own (non-PTS) tests.

    We can safely ignore any test that exceeds 200fps or so. Performance differences above that point are meaningless and reveal little about real-world performance in modern software (they are equivalent to glxgears in that regard).

    Finally, please don't feed the Ubuntu-is-not-Linux trolls.

Posting Permissions

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