Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Intel Core i3/i5/i7 Ubuntu Linux Performance Update

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,759

    Default Intel Core i3/i5/i7 Ubuntu Linux Performance Update

    Phoronix: Intel Core i3/i5/i7 Ubuntu Linux Performance Update

    Earlier today on Phoronix I delivered benchmarks showing Intel's Haswell graphics falling behind Ivy Bridge on Linux, something not seen previously and certainly not what's expected. Curious to see whether this likely Intel Haswell Linux performance regression was limited to just the HD Graphics or the processor performance overall, here's the complementary set of Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell benchmarks. These tests span the Core i3/i5/i7 series when using the latest Ubuntu 14.04 packages and the Linux 3.13 kernel with these benchmarks focusing upon the processor performance.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19654

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    43

    Default Core i3-4130

    Well, that's interesting. Looks like the AESNI instruction set has moved down to the i3 line with Haswell. Well, some of them. 12 members have it while 4 don't. That's very interesting. I wonder when the Celeron/Pentium models (if/when they show up) will have it? Looks like the new Bay Trail Atom chips have it. That's the 3[78]xx Atoms, but not the 34xx ones.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    226

    Default

    That i3 4130 is very impressive!!!!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    141

    Default

    still would be interesting if there were AMD tests in there also
    like FX 8350 and 6300 or similar.. APU is slow anyway.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgui View Post
    That i3 4130 is very impressive!!!!
    Really?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexilion View Post
    Really?
    Whats your point?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgui View Post
    Whats your point?
    They were impressively bad. Maybe a sarcasm bit was lost in translation.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carewolf View Post
    They were impressively bad. Maybe a sarcasm bit was lost in translation.
    It came in second on every test that didn't benefit from high degrees of threading. How is that 'impressively bad'?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carewolf View Post
    They were impressively bad. Maybe a sarcasm bit was lost in translation.
    Cheap price and a top 75% performer. Are you really that thick?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carewolf View Post
    They were impressively bad. Maybe a sarcasm bit was lost in translation.
    My point. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by willmore View Post
    It came in second on every test that didn't benefit from high degrees of threading. How is that 'impressively bad'?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tgui View Post
    Cheap price and a top 75% performer. Are you really that thick?
    This is why I responded. Why do you think that is? To the uninformed eye, it doesn't look to perform that well. According to your responses I can infer that this CPU has one of the best price/performance ratio of all.

Posting Permissions

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