Intel Core i9 10980XE: Windows 10 vs. Linux Performance

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Intel Core i9 10980XE: Windows 10 vs. Linux Performance

A few weeks back having done Threadripper 3970X Windows vs. Linux benchmarks for seeing how the competing operating systems are performing, following the recent i9-10980XE 11-way Linux distributions tests I loaded up Microsoft Windows 10 Pro November 2019 Update... Here are those benchmarks for those wondering how the Cascadelake-X platform is running in Windows vs. Linux performance.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=28664

[stormcrow]

The SQLite performance on Windows 10 was comparable to openSUSE Tumbleweed on XFS, which in turn was much slower than the other Linux distributions... Microsoft's NTFS is certainly showing its age.

To be fair to MS, they're aware of the problems with NTFS's performance problems, hence ReFS. Unfortunately like most massive multinational corporations they're schizo in rolling it out. They backed off plans to introduce it beyond the enterprise version of 10. They are working on trying to improve NTFS performance as well since it's going to become increasingly clear with people using their WFL subsystem just how bad file I/O is compared to most Linux distributions.

That said, most people never chose Windows for blazing fast performance. It was chosen for backwards compatibility, ease of use, and available software for whatever task the user needs. Most of those users are not tech savvy nerds. They're secretaries, school kids, and Average Joes that need computer support at work or school. Course now MS is losing the education market to Google and Chromebooks which are even more simple and easy to use and maintain.

[man-walking]

Why not use Arch Linux in place of Manjaro, also, it seems to have pretty bad defaults, shall I think the same about Arch ?

[Michael]

Why not use Arch Linux in place of Manjaro, also, it seems to have pretty bad defaults, shall I think the same about Arch ?

Because Arch really doesn't have defaults and can vary too much from system/user to system/user, not to mention taking longer to setup.

[muncrief]

Because Arch really doesn't have defaults and can vary too much from system/user to system/user, not to mention taking longer to setup.

That's a very good point Michael. How would you configure Arch so it would have any semblance to what most people are using? Since it's as close to Linux-from-scratch as one can get without compiling everything it would seem a near impossible task.

I am mystified at the poor benchmarks of Manjaro though. As recently as six months ago I gave Ubuntu another try and everything I used was noticeably slower than Manjaro.

[Vistaus]

Because Arch really doesn't have defaults and can vary too much from system/user to system/user, not to mention taking longer to setup.

Agreed. But maybe something closer to Arch would be better-suited than Manjaro, like EndeavourOS or ArcoLinux?

[Volta]

Ubuntu used to be fast..

[Jigglywiggly]

It would be nice if clear Linux was more simple to setup and use on a desktop computer. The performance from it looks awesome but I am lazy and just want something that works out of the box.