Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 72

Thread: KDE & Xfce Don't Lead To Performance Wins Over Windows 8

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,464

    Default KDE & Xfce Don't Lead To Performance Wins Over Windows 8

    Phoronix: KDE & Xfce Don't Lead To Performance Wins Over Windows 8

    When publishing the OpenGL performance results yesterday showing Windows 8 generally leading with a performance advantage over Ubuntu Linux, there was the usual large portion of the Linux community in disbelief. For proving a point, here are now results showing the Windows 8 Intel OpenGL performance compared to Ubuntu Linux when testing the KDE and Xfce desktops.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18587

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    hah damn Michael put the whiner's in their place. I personally was interested to see these tests myself, though I didn't expect KDE would have performed better than Unity or XFCE. I was surprised to see how poorly it performed.

    I think what would be a nifty test is to see how Windows 8 performs when using DX and GL versions of the same games (can be a different collection of games from the tests performed here though).
    Last edited by schmidtbag; 03-22-2013 at 03:15 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    21

    Default

    LOL, this test doesn't proof anything. It only tells that drivers under Linux are crap and shit. You could use even OpenBox and it could be same results.

    And why are you doing test with games that have ioquake3 which is some years old? Try some games from Steam like Serious Sam 3 or Anomaly Warzone Earth. And start doing min/max FPS because avr FPS doesn't show real performance of graphics cards
    Last edited by olbi; 03-22-2013 at 03:31 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Not only min/max but also frame latency. That is the single largest factor in "smoothness" as it is perceived by the player.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Michael, could you do similar benchmarks for other Distributions? Would be interesting...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kingston, Jamaica
    Posts
    283

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olbi View Post
    LOL, this test doesn't proof anything. It only tells that drivers under Linux are crap and shit. You could use even OpenBox and it could be same results.

    And why are you doing test with games that have ioquake3 which is some years old? Try some games from Steam like Serious Sam 3 or Anomaly Warzone Earth. And start doing min/max FPS because avr FPS doesn't show real performance of graphics cards
    EXACTLY what i said before in previous tests thread Yeah, there is almost no point in testing such old games, but from other side, there is also almost no point in testing such powerfull games as serious sam 3 with intel graphics, which isnt made for performance; so we would see no difference, it would be like "max: 2 fps, min: 1 fps"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    250

    Default

    This benchmark raises some questions:
    Windows 8:
    - Intel Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9
    - Disk 187GB

    Ubuntu:
    - Intel Core i3 @ 1.8 Ghz
    - 500 GB HDD + 24GB SSD

    That test appeared flawed considering different specifications. Ubuntu might be one of the slow distributions and
    Windows 8 was optimized for that ultrabook . I think the benchmark need a redo with the same hardware.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by startzz View Post
    EXACTLY what i said before in previous tests thread Yeah, there is almost no point in testing such old games, but from other side, there is also almost no point in testing such powerfull games as serious sam 3 with intel graphics, which isnt made for performance; so we would see no difference, it would be like "max: 2 fps, min: 1 fps"
    At these resolutions, i feel confident Intel could at least get 4 or 5 fps.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by startzz View Post
    EXACTLY what i said before in previous tests thread Yeah, there is almost no point in testing such old games, but from other side, there is also almost no point in testing such powerfull games as serious sam 3 with intel graphics, which isnt made for performance; so we would see no difference, it would be like "max: 2 fps, min: 1 fps"
    Hey, I thought you were only on this website so you could troll people. But you're agreeing with someone, which means you're failing as a troll.

Posting Permissions

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