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

[Anux]

Do you remember when you used to re-install Windows 7 and there were hundreds of updates waiting to be installed, and it could literally take several hours to update them all because Windows update is slow AF?

It really is much worse than you already described it. First it's not any better in Win 10, second updates are uncontrolable and therefore mess with your gaming (or other time critical tasks) experience.
When I have a high end Win system (fastest CPU and M.2 you could buy) and a random arch linux box, clicking on "search for updates" in Windows will last longer than the complete update process in arch. Plus I can do updates and reboot whenever I want under Linux.

[Amarildo]

0 pricing issues? I'll put you in touch with our RHEL VAR. And on the bloat front, you haven't used Ubuntu recently have you?

Good and "0 issues" are not the same and saying something has "0 issues" suggests your usage of it is very shallow.

I mean, for Windows there's only "1 Windows" depending on what is being done, and in all cases there's pricing involved if you want full functionality. For Linux you're not forced to use RedHat (which I believe recently became free for some cases?). In any case, I wasn't talking about the server space.

But even though I was talking about the Desktop, even in the server space one can build a server with Debian, Ubuntu, CentOS/Rocky, or whatever distro they want. But then, of course, if there's a company involved, with huge servers that can't go down, "spending money" just comes with the business, either with support from the makers or personnel to take care of them (or both).

What I mean is that there is freedom with Linux. Don't like RedHat? Use Rocky, or Debian, or whatever other distro you want, for free.

In regards to issues: I didn't say "there's never any bugs". In fact, this is a gripe I always have with technology, is that nothing truly works 100% of the time. But I still stand on my commend that there are:
- 0 boat: although extremely rare, some distros can have some bloat. But contrary to Windows, they're never tied to the OS and one can remove them easily. That goes 100% in contrast with e.g. Cortana in Windows - if a user doesn't want Cortana and completely removes it, the Search functionality stops working. That has never happened on Linux, not only because our community is much more vigilant and vocal about these kinds of stuff, but because Linux gives us the freedom to whatever we want with our system, even completely removing the Kernel. And we not only have full access to the SourceCode, but I've never seen a new functionality (that can be considered bloat) being 100% tied to the OS and preventing regular users from removing it;
- 0 privacy issues: same as above, freedom to remove it or use a different DE/Distro. But then you can say "but Ubuntu 12.10 and Amazon" - in which case: yes, that was a nasty move by Canonical. But the "tool" was GPL, which means they (Canonical) had the "right" to put it there, and we as the users had the right to disable the tool or remove it completely, or use a different DE than Unity, or not use Ubuntu altogether. In this case, the freedom goes both ways and we're not bound to Canonical's mistakes;
- 0 licensing issues: same as first item, nobody's forced to use a specific distro;
- 0 updating issues: contrary to Windows, we are in full control of the updates we want to allow on our systems. Is "KMines" updating and you don't want the few KB of network bandwidth used every time KDE pushes an update for it? Just put the package on hold, or remove the package entirely. I remember a while ago I used to have a script that would block numerous packages from even installing in the first place, I'd run Ubuntu/Debian installer (expert install) and wget the script that would block geoclue and a few other dozen packages that Parabola and other Libre distros would block in regards to privacy. Apt was smart enough to realize I didn't want those packages and it would allow me to fully install any DE I wanted. I was in full control (for what my abilities as a non-coder are).

In addition, there's never a time problem when updating. Do you remember when you used to re-install Windows 7 and there were hundreds of updates waiting to be installed, and it could literally take several hours to update them all because Windows update is slow AF? Now grab Debian 10 or 11 and update it, you can even set your internet speeds to be limited to the "old" speeds you had in the past. Sure, the download speeds will be the same, but the install speeds is what matters, and Linux is extremely fast in this regard.

I've also never encountered issues when upgrading from one version to another - but that can also be said about Windows. What Microsoft is really good at is making sure their OS is backwards compatible and that the upgrade process is seamless - although it also takes quite longer than on Linux.

[Anux]

I have just noticed this benchmark that shows heavy regressions in ubuntu: https://www.phoronix.com/review/ubuntu-2304-laptops making the win from 23.04 to Windows even more impressive.

[Anux]

0 pricing issues? I'll put you in touch with our RHEL VAR.

And what does RedHat have to do with the pricing of random distros? You can easily give a RedHat Linux free of charge to whomever you want.

And on the bloat front, you haven't used Ubuntu recently have you?

The good thing with Linux, there is not only one that you are forced to use.

Good and "0 issues" are not the same and saying something has "0 issues" suggests your usage of it is very shallow.

Agreed.

[ll1025]

Because it is. From boot, to opening programs, to working on those programs. I'll give you a few examples:

- Booting my Fedora takes 4 to 5 seconds. Windows (on the same NVMe drive) takes 10;
- Opening GIMP in Linux takes literally 1 second. On Windows it takes 4 every single time;
- Opening Autodesk Maya 2024 on Windows takes 17 seconds for me. On Linux? 5 to 7.

And not only is Linux more "snappy", it's has 0 bloat, 0 privacy issues, 0 licensing issues, 0 pricing issues, 0 updating issues....... and it runs the programs better too.

0 pricing issues? I'll put you in touch with our RHEL VAR. And on the bloat front, you haven't used Ubuntu recently have you?

Good and "0 issues" are not the same and saying something has "0 issues" suggests your usage of it is very shallow.

[Amarildo]

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

Because it is. From boot, to opening programs, to working on those programs. I'll give you a few examples:

- Booting my Fedora takes 4 to 5 seconds. Windows (on the same NVMe drive) takes 10;
- Opening GIMP in Linux takes literally 1 second. On Windows it takes 4 every single time;
- Opening Autodesk Maya 2024 on Windows takes 17 seconds for me. On Linux? 5 to 7.

And not only is Linux more "snappy", it's has 0 bloat, 0 privacy issues, 0 licensing issues, 0 pricing issues, 0 updating issues....... and it runs the programs better too.

[smitty3268]

things like VBS that are not a default in all cases be turned off.

It's either a default or it isn't. Tests on more hardware are always welcome, and that can pick up cases where Windows is faster on some hardware than others, if that's really the case.

Frankly, this is a little silly. Windows typically has far more optimized default options for desktop usage than Linux does, which has all sorts of things optimized more for server use OOTB. If you are going to say the systems should be optimized, that's likely to end up hurting Windows more comparatively.

[ll1025]

flower mdedetrich
I said that it was 5-10% in benchmarks and *up to* 20%, in certain cases, and that is NOT just virtualization overhead. VBS is a lot more than just virtualization a la Azure, and involves a lot more context switching. Normal virtualization of an OS has that one OS operating in a single trust domain. VBS has the kernel and userland in different domains, with a second kernel to boot. That involves some penalties that normal VM usecases are never going to experience.

[ll1025]

I agree with smitty3268 here. Those that play around with spectre and VBS are clearly a minority and it would also be a never ending search for the right settings. What if I deactivate defender and not VBS or the other way around? Just testing the standard is probably the only way to go as long as you don't want to compare specific functions of an OS.

Also up to 20% slowdown from virtualisation? Whoa, that is what MS shoves their users up the a** with a standard install? Than it's not to bad to test this so MS has a reason to go fix their VM. KVM/Qemu can do much better.

As I said it depends heavily and is usually 5-10%. It's also not just virtualization. The hit is on par with other mitigations that Linux enables-- which Windows *also* enables, sometimes with a lower hit. And VBS is not a consistent default-- it can be, with the right hardware, on a fresh install of Windows 11. Or it might not be, if you have an older install, or performed an upgrade, or don't have virtualization enabled in the BIOS, or have machines from certain OEMs, or are virtualizing Windows, or have policies disabling VBS due to its various errata.....

Defender should not be factored in because you're again testing unlike to unlike. Corporate environments where this stuff matters often mandate endpoint detection products for linux, and home users who care most about performance are frequently disabling mitigations whether on Windows or on Linux. Running a performance test where one install has antivirus and another does not is straight biased.

If the goal is to compare the two operating systems performance then the goal should be to minimize other factors. If this is to be a general "what is it like running Windows vs Linux", then I'd expect to see some of those differences detailed (e.g. that Windows does a better job of protecting the kernel from compromise; that Linux has a better native hypervisor). But it isn't that, it's a performance comparative, and so it is reasonable to suggest that things like VBS that are not a default in all cases be turned off.

[Anux]

I agree with smitty3268 here. Those that play around with spectre and VBS are clearly a minority and it would also be a never ending search for the right settings. What if I deactivate defender and not VBS or the other way around? Just testing the standard is probably the only way to go as long as you don't want to compare specific functions of an OS.

Also up to 20% slowdown from virtualisation? Whoa, that is what MS shoves their users up the a** with a standard install? Than it's not to bad to test this so MS has a reason to go fix their VM. KVM/Qemu can do much better.