Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

8-Way Linux Distribution Benchmarks On The Intel Core i9 9900K - One Distro Wins 67% Of The Time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by KillYourFM View Post
    clickbait doesn't have to be false, just has to bait you into going to the article because the wording made it sound interesting.
    That is literally the true purpose of a good headline. Just saying.
    I don't know if you ever read newspapers, but they actually summarize the article instead of focusing on enticement. The main problem with newspaper headlines is/was they would tend to be too terse, sometimes making them a bit ambiguous or confusing. But, within the first paragraph, if not the first sentence of the article, that confusion would usually be dispelled.

    Another way to think about it is that the reason click-bait earned a special term for itself is because it deviated from the norm. If click-baity headlines were truly the norm, then people would just call them headlines and there'd be no expectation they would do anything other than entice.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Zyklon View Post
      My comment was in general that I don’t see a point in doing Octave benchmarks at all, as someone who cares even just a litte bit about performance in scientific computing would never consider Octave in the first place.
      I think there are still way more Octave users than Julia. I occasionally use Octave, but not enough to be worth investing time in learning something else. The only other sort of comparable thing I find myself using is numpy.

      I'm not arguing against Julia benchmarks - particularly if it's good at scaling to multiple cores. I'm just saying that Octave is hardly as irrelevant as you seem to imply.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Michael View Post
        It is used by at least a number of some data centers / cloud, IoT, and other environments but exactly where it's used doesn't seem to be widely published.
        It would be helpful if you could also summarize the Specter/Meltdown status of these Kernels. My hunch is that Clear pulls such a big lead on I/O because is circumventing certain software workarounds that the Coffee Lake Refresh CPUs implement in hardware.

        Generally speaking, I/O is least affected by things like compiler optimizations.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by coder View Post
          It would be helpful if you could also summarize the Specter/Meltdown status of these Kernels. My hunch is that Clear pulls such a big lead on I/O because is circumventing certain software workarounds that the Coffee Lake Refresh CPUs implement in hardware.

          Generally speaking, I/O is least affected by things like compiler optimizations.
          All the mitigations for Spectre/Meltdown are shown on the automated system hardware/software table within the article.
          Michael Larabel
          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Michael View Post
            All the mitigations for Spectre/Meltdown are shown on the automated system hardware/software table within the article.
            Are those kernel parameters? Doesn't the Kernel disable certain mitigations based on runtime detection of the CPU model? I thought this was used by Ryzen, to avoid certain mitigations needed for Intel CPUs. If that's true, then only the latest kernels will know about the i9 and its security capabilities.

            So, rather than kernel parameters, isn't there something in sysfs to query about which mitigations are active? Or maybe that's what you're doing. Forgive my ignorance, but I'm probably not the only one who hasn't followed this too closely.

            Thanks for your patience.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by coder View Post
              Are those kernel parameters? Doesn't the Kernel disable certain mitigations based on runtime detection of the CPU model? I thought this was used by Ryzen, to avoid certain mitigations needed for Intel CPUs. If that's true, then only the latest kernels will know about the i9 and its security capabilities.

              So, rather than kernel parameters, isn't there something in sysfs to query about which mitigations are active? Or maybe that's what you're doing. Forgive my ignorance, but I'm probably not the only one who hasn't followed this too closely.

              Thanks for your patience.
              PTS is querying the sysfs data and reporting that which does indicate what is actually applied by default.
              Michael Larabel
              http://www.michaellarabel.com/

              Comment


              • #37
                I suggest that Manjaro should be replaced by ArcoLinux which is closer to ArchLinux, I think.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by dxxvi View Post
                  I suggest that Manjaro should be replaced by ArcoLinux which is closer to ArchLinux, I think.
                  Artix Linux... No systemd. See if your compile optimized systemd can defeat runit...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by coder View Post
                    I think there are still way more Octave users than Julia. I occasionally use Octave, but not enough to be worth investing time in learning something else. The only other sort of comparable thing I find myself using is numpy.

                    I'm not arguing against Julia benchmarks - particularly if it's good at scaling to multiple cores. I'm just saying that Octave is hardly as irrelevant as you seem to imply.

                    According to Tiobe, Julia is already #43 while just having reached v1.0 – Octave is not even mentioned while it exists for how many years?
                    https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index//

                    Julia is the future scripting language, as it can replace Matlab, Python, R, sh, bash, *sh and several others, like Octave, Scilab, Sage etc. Just like Rust will replace a lot of C, C++, Java etc. I always hated the fact that there are so many languages – normal programmers are never able to really utilize them. Take shell scripting as an example, this is pure crap. Being able to reduce this number significantly will allow programmers to get better. Compared with the enormous power of Julia, these are the reasons why this language is so important.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Zyklon View Post
                      According to Tiobe, Julia is already #43 while just having reached v1.0 – Octave is not even mentioned while it exists for how many years?
                      https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index//
                      Octave == MATLAB (i.e. #11, up from #13 last year).

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X