Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D: Windows 11 vs. Ubuntu 23.04 Linux Performance

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

  • AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D: Windows 11 vs. Ubuntu 23.04 Linux Performance

    Phoronix: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D: Windows 11 vs. Ubuntu 23.04 Linux Performance

    With the recent launch of the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D, several Phoronix Premium supporters expressed interest in seeing how well the Windows 11 vs. Linux performance compared for this Zen 4 3D V-Cache processor. Given those requests, here are some CPU/system benchmarks looking at the performance of Windows 11 Professional against Ubuntu 23.04 in its near-final state on the 7800X3D desktop.

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Hmm, 7%.

    Linux fans claim that Windows is so slow that it is impossible to work on it.

    They claim that on Windows all operations take several times longer and Windows takes all resources and for programs nothing is left.

    And it turns out that in the right 28% of the programs Windows is even faster

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by HEL88 View Post
      And it turns out that in the right 28% of the programs Windows is even faster
      It turns out Linux eats windows for breakfast even if one of the slowest Linux distributions was tested. 7%? In some benchmarks it's nearly 50%. It seems winboys are always out of touch with reality.
      Last edited by Volta; 17 April 2023, 09:59 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        When İ first saw that Michael used the default "schedutil" governor for this comparison, İ expected the worst.

        Turns out that only having 3 different clockspeeds to choose from means less room for bad decisions, similar to the Steam Deck's use of acpi-cpufreq schedutil.

        Having said that, hopefully Michael switches over to the performance governor for the forthcoming gaming benchmarks...

        Comment


        • #5
          Ubuntu/GNOME is a bad representationen of Linux.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by HEL88 View Post
            Hmm, 7%.

            Linux fans claim that Windows is so slow that it is impossible to work on it.

            They claim that on Windows all operations take several times longer and Windows takes all resources and for programs nothing is left.

            And it turns out that in the right 28% of the programs Windows is even faster
            You seem to not understand what people are complaining about, it's not that a few programms run faster or slower by a single percent digit. That wouldn't even be noticable. It's about how fast the system responds to user interactions, how fast it boots up (and is actually useable). On my linux box it takes exactly 8 seconds from cold boot (with bios boot time) to a fresh loaded web site. On most win boxes that would be a dream or only possible with standby.
            Also the system was tested with 32 GB ram, sure this doesn't show the same problems like a 4GB box. On a decent win box with i5 and 16 GB it takes > 4 sec. to start firefox, on linux it takes 1 sec (maybe not under ubuntu snap).
            My mom uses a T61 with 2GB ram and it feels faster than any win 10 on any modern system. Even if you could install a win 10 on a T61 it would probably be unusably slow.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post
              When İ first saw that Michael used the default "schedutil" governor for this comparison, İ expected the worst.

              Turns out that only having 3 different clockspeeds to choose from means less room for bad decisions, similar to the Steam Deck's use of acpi-cpufreq schedutil.

              Having said that, hopefully Michael switches over to the performance governor for the forthcoming gaming benchmarks...
              What is actually the difference between libcpupower1 and libcpufreq0 as libcpuwer seems to be more used in applets?

              Comment


              • #8
                The problem with windows is not that it can't run programs quickly. Of course it can. NT kernel is performant and mature and just like Linux it used to run quickly on a 486.
                And it's not that Microsoft developers are not talented ones.

                The problem is that on typical Windows desktop you need an antivirus that of course needs to scan every file on read and write, even if it was already scanned 5 minutes ago.
                And every piece of hardware needs a "control panel" that eats 1GB RAM, an updater running in the background, and full blown launcher because you just cannot run your app otherwise.
                And when you're not using actively your computer, of course there is always a "very important" service running in the background that will happily scan thru all your files just for fun because disk can't be idling. Some kind of svchost.exe that just needs to do it's very important tasks that you are not aware of every 15 minutes.

                And the funniest thing is when it absolutely needs to install system updates on reboot now, in the middle of your work, and it will take 8 hours to finish only to fail at the end.

                Properly slimmed down windows with bloatware removed probably isn't any slower than linux. But keeping it in this state is PITA.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by sobrus View Post
                  The problem with windows is not that it can't run programs quickly. Of course it can. NT kernel is performant and mature and just like Linux it used to run quickly on a 486.
                  And it's not that Microsoft developers are not talented ones.

                  The problem is that on typical Windows desktop you need an antivirus that of course needs to scan every file on read and write, even if it was already scanned 5 minutes ago.
                  And every piece of hardware needs a "control panel" that eats 1GB RAM, an updater running in the background, and full blown launcher because you just cannot run your app otherwise.
                  And when you're not using actively your computer, of course there is always a "very important" service running in the background that will happily scan thru all your files just for fun because disk can't be idling. Some kind of svchost.exe that just needs to do it's very important tasks that you are not aware of every 15 minutes.

                  And the funniest thing is when it absolutely needs to install system updates on reboot now, in the middle of your work, and it will take 8 hours to finish only to fail at the end.

                  Properly slimmed down windows with bloatware removed probably isn't any slower than linux. But keeping it in this state is PITA.
                  NT did not at all run well on a 486, Pentiums where the first processors that did run NT in a usable manner.

                  The main issue with NT is that its fragile as hell and hard crashes at the smallest issue.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kjell View Post
                    Ubuntu/GNOME is a bad representationen of Linux.
                    Is it? Would an esoteric distro like Intel's Clear Linux, that hardly anyone uses, be more representative?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X