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

[phoronix]

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.

https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-7800x3d-windows11-ubuntu

[HEL88]

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

[Volta]

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.

[Linuxxx]

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...

[Kjell]

Ubuntu/GNOME is a bad representationen of Linux.

[Anux]

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.

[DRanged]

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?

[sobrus]

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.

[t1r0nama]

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

Last time i installed windows 11 on a laptop it took 4 hours to install all updates and doing so it eat up almost all of 8 GB of ram and laptop was unusable for those hours. It was just sitting there and screaming because it heated up too much.

If even ubuntu is 7% faster then windows 11, then much more optimized builds and even x86_64_v2 optimized distros like fedora, opensuse or x86_64_v3 optimized ones like cachy os will blow windows 11 out of the water.

Intels distro would also clearly win if Michael compared those two

Windows is slow we linux users mean it's not resposive and fast in doing actions like linux. I feel uncomfortable working on a computer and waiting for it to do simple tasks like opening browser, or booting up, installing updates, installing programs and such. My laptop needs 6.6 seconds for fresh boot. I mean from pressing power button to the desktop. Starting browser? less then 1 sec. Shutting down? 3 seconds at max. Windows uses hybrid shutdown and even then it's slower then my machine cold boot.

[Alexmitter]

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.