Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: NVIDIA Performance: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Linux 12.10

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pallidus View Post
    gnome ain't dead, the pile of fail that is unity is dead.


    hey man why not test the fastest DE out there, lxde? lubuntu instead of kubuntu

    hell even xubuntu would do. gnome and kde are the slowest ones.


    THIS ---------> "Where the frack is Doom3 test? "

    Doom3 is the most relevant app out there that you can use natively both in windows and linux... who cares about xonotblabla
    he tested some articles ago all DE vs unity and except unity mostly all DE performed the same, why clutter the graphs? kde4.9+rfw/lxde/xfce/gnome shell/etc perform the, michael just picked of that pile the most common KDE.

    well xonotic is quite a good game and use many recent techiques and is the same codebase for any OS, so if you wanna test OS vs OS is better to stick to software you can prove that behave the same in any given plataform.

    if you payed atention to the article or even read it is a windows vs linux on nvidia blob not what gpu is faster, so i don't get what you whine??

    doom3 is not a relevant test for an OS vs OS, if you actually put 3 neurons to work togheter you will see the reasons like:

    * is closed source so you can't know for sure if it uses the same renderpath in both oses or any other typical dirty hack to gain more FPS that is not present within the other OS
    * many driver especially on windows have many hacks to boost performance that trigger depending on the .exe filename that won't necessarily trigger on linux
    * neither xonotic and especially doom3 will put any modern gpu to its knees
    * this is not a game benchmark LOL is a driver level comparison of engines between 2 OSes, if you want game bench there are many specialized sites out there, you know


    if you wanna reply do it technically i won't bother in answer stupid replys

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bug77 View Post
    So, is this your first time installing a more featured program that also needs more RAM to do the job?
    Ok, but also many times I have used software with many more features but better optimized. A good example is given here: KDE/KWin vs GNOME+Unity

    Quote Originally Posted by bug77 View Post
    Of course nouveau will use more RAM, it doesn't do half the stuff the proprietary driver does.
    I have the driver installed on Kubuntu 12.10beta, but didn't notice the memory usage; wasn't paying attention either. It seemed to work just as fine as the previous version.
    I think you wanted to say "less". Anyway that's not the point. There is a difference between "more" use of resources and "excessive" usage of resources. The v304.43 "nvidia" drivers make my system slow and heavy, and after a while it is completely unusable. That is, there is something that is not working well.
    For clarification I say that in other versions of Kubuntu I had used different versions of proprietary "nvidia" drivers without problems. I asked that to know if it was a problem that only happened to me with that drivers version.
    Regards.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YAFU View Post
    Ok, but also many times I have used software with many more features but better optimized. A good example is given here: KDE/KWin vs GNOME+Unity


    I think you wanted to say "less". Anyway that's not the point. There is a difference between "more" use of resources and "excessive" usage of resources. The v304.43 "nvidia" drivers make my system slow and heavy, and after a while it is completely unusable. That is, there is something that is not working well.
    For clarification I say that in other versions of Kubuntu I had used different versions of proprietary "nvidia" drivers without problems. I asked that to know if it was a problem that only happened to me with that drivers version.
    Regards.
    im not sure but it happended before so its possible, go to nvnews maybe there is faster to find an answer.

    this kind of post will wake and supercharge every nvidia troll in phoronix[they are legion] cuz for them nvidia blob is the most absolute and pure form of perfection and only those seduced by the devil[AMD] will dare to propose the holy blob can fail hence starting the next troll holy shitstorm on phoronix

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    27

    Default

    I'm still waiting for the test with a real desktop for perfomance. XFCE, LXDE...

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    this kind of post will wake and supercharge every nvidia troll in phoronix[they are legion] cuz for them nvidia blob is the most absolute and pure form of perfection and only those seduced by the devil[AMD] will dare to propose the holy blob can fail hence starting the next troll holy shitstorm on phoronix
    Hahaha. Anyway I've been using ATI for many years in GNU/Linux, and it is a headache. With nVidia I have suffered less than with ATI. I clarify that I am not a troll or a fanboy, just tell you my experience. Clearly nvidia is not perfect too.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    this kind of post will wake and supercharge every nvidia troll in phoronix[they are legion]...
    A sign that maybe nvidia's support really is good, despite not being open sourced?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mitcoes View Post
    I would like XFCE, 720p and 1080p tests too
    All tests are run at 1920x1080 so that just leaves 720p and XFCE. In a recent article it was shown that xfce had about the same performance of KDE, so KDE was used in this test. Also, I don't think that 1280x720 is a common resolution for computer screens. I never saw a computer screen that supported it.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,199

    Default

    This was a well done bench. Just posting that.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Is it just me but are the windows 7 tests using the same SDD? the graphic shows 56GB under the windows 7 columns.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrplow View Post
    Is it just me but are the windows 7 tests using the same SDD? the graphic shows 56GB under the windows 7 columns.
    Maybe in windows PTS only reports the partition size and Michael only used a 56GB partition for this test?

Posting Permissions

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