A Look At The Intel Cascade Lake Performance For Windows Server 2019 vs. Linux vs. FreeBSD Benchmarks

[phoronix]

Phoronix: A Look At The Intel Cascade Lake Performance For Windows Server 2019 vs. Linux vs. FreeBSD Benchmarks

Continuing on with our benchmarks this month of the new Intel Xeon Cascade Lake processors in the form of the Xeon Platinum 8280 processors, here are some preliminary figures showing not only how various Linux distributions are comparing to Microsoft Windows Server 2019 but also FreeBSD 12.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=27767

[tildearrow]

Typo:

here are Windows Server 2019 Buld 17763

Also, you may want to reorder this sentence:

The Stockfish chess benchmark performed similarly to Linux/FreeBSD for the Stockfish chess engine except for being much slower on WSL.

[cen1]

Considering how much less funding FreeBSD gets in comparison to Linux and Windows it's quite remarkable how well it can hang in there with the big boyz.

[labyrinth153]

FreeBSD rocking a lot of these. Well done.

[jacob]

Considering how much less funding FreeBSD gets in comparison to Linux and Windows it's quite remarkable how well it can hang in there with the big boyz.

It's praiseworthy indeed. But to be fair, although FreeBSD can't directly import GPL code from Linux, they no doubt watch and analyse carefully how some of the performance optimisations are done in Linux so they indirectly benefit from the billions $$$ invested into Linux too, except of course for some of the patent-encumbered algorithms like RCU.

[aht0]

Considering how much less funding FreeBSD gets in comparison to Linux and Windows it's quite remarkable how well it can hang in there with the big boyz.

Add in the little fact that these days, most software gets written on Linux, for Linux and often requires dedicated porting effort for FreeBSD. Where "just getting it running" is usually the sole goal, devs have too many other irons in fire to spent special effort fine-tuning the ported piece afterwards.

[Grinch]

I don't get the point of these tests when so many variables differ. If you are not even using the same compiler options for these benchmarks, it can say pretty much nothing about the underlying OS performance and is essentially just a comparison between different compiler optimization levels.

For example, LAME encoding, FreeBSD 12 GCC lists '-lncurses -liconv' and no optimization level, meaning the default will be used, which is -O0, as in practically zero optimization. Then the other FreeBSD LAME encoding benchmark uses '-O3 -pipe -lncurses', as in the highest optimization level. It makes no sense. This is such poor methodology that I find the results apart from the Go benchmarks (which doesn't have any optimization options) pretty much worthless.

Again, what is the point of these tests ?

[kobblestown]

Again, what is the point of these tests ?

The point is to generate clicks. No offense, that's how Michael makes his living. In such cases his position is that he uses defaults because that's what most people will experience. And it's easier for him to set up the tests and move to the next article.

I enjoy Phoronix because Michael covers many different topics, sometimes obscure ones. But there's seldom any depth in his reporting.

[aht0]

For one, this is living for Michael. So, re-compiling everything using custom settings would slow him down from publishing new articles tremendously (not to mention extra costs in electricity), which would mean deep dive for his income.

Then, you can reasonably assume that most people would just go with default values with only small subset going for custom settings - custom settings he would be unlikely to precisely guess for more than even smaller subset of the latter folks. So it makes every sense to go at it as he has been. If somebody is really keen to test his settings on bunch of OSes or distros - he/she is free to do so, PTS is free.

[Volta]

FreeBSD rocking a lot of these. Well done.

You're probably looking at some other benchmark. It's hard to expect from it to do better in tests other than file system benchmarks where Solaris' ZFS shines in few cases.