Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE & Xfce Don't Lead To Performance Wins Over Windows 8

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

  • KDE & Xfce Don't Lead To Performance Wins Over Windows 8

    Phoronix: KDE & Xfce Don't Lead To Performance Wins Over Windows 8

    When publishing the OpenGL performance results yesterday showing Windows 8 generally leading with a performance advantage over Ubuntu Linux, there was the usual large portion of the Linux community in disbelief. For proving a point, here are now results showing the Windows 8 Intel OpenGL performance compared to Ubuntu Linux when testing the KDE and Xfce desktops.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18587

  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    I can't speak for him, but my reasons for using Arch are that it is a rolling release, it has the flexibility of the AUR, and the fact it allows me to know every single package I put on my computer. So it is mostly for Linux control freaks.
    If you've ever run Gentoo and thought, "wow this distro is awesome, but i wish i could just download binaries for everything", Arch might be for you.

    I'm not saying it's Gentoo, just there is a similar do-it-yourself, get your hands dirty, and have absolute control over what's going on in your system kind of attitude about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • juanrga
    replied
    Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    I can't speak for him, but my reasons for using Arch are that it is a rolling release, it has the flexibility of the AUR, and the fact it allows me to know every single package I put on my computer. So it is mostly for Linux control freaks.
    Thank you!

    Leave a comment:


  • Hamish Wilson
    replied
    I can't speak for him, but my reasons for using Arch are that it is a rolling release, it has the flexibility of the AUR, and the fact it allows me to know every single package I put on my computer. So it is mostly for Linux control freaks.

    Leave a comment:


  • juanrga
    replied
    Originally posted by jaysonrowe View Post
    Yup - exactly. I just moved from Kubuntu 13.04 to Arch. Yes, the desktop feels snappier, but performance in games is almost identical. I even tried w/ Xfce4 first before loading KDE. No difference really between distros or window managers.

    That being said, I do like Arch, and plan to keep it on this machine long term for other reasons, but *not* for better performance in games.
    I was just ready to install Arch, the installation guide is still on my desk, but finally I decided not to do it after I checked some additional facts such as the issue of the speed. Actually I find no reason to switch to Arch. Could I ask you what reasons are guiding you to keep it? if this is not a too personal question of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • shruti001
    replied
    I can not believe this that windows 8 doing better but heard lot about this kind of stuff

    Leave a comment:


  • jaysonrowe
    replied
    Originally posted by juanrga View Post
    The issue here is open vs closed driver performances. Comparison of stock ubuntu with stock windows 8 seems fair, specially for most users. Comparisons of unity with lights WM/DE (Xfce, LDXE, OpenBox...) are available at phoronix and they do not run quickly. The same as a comparison of ubuntu to Archlinux: Arch speed advantages are minimal.
    Yup - exactly. I just moved from Kubuntu 13.04 to Arch. Yes, the desktop feels snappier, but performance in games is almost identical. I even tried w/ Xfce4 first before loading KDE. No difference really between distros or window managers.

    That being said, I do like Arch, and plan to keep it on this machine long term for other reasons, but *not* for better performance in games.

    Leave a comment:


  • juanrga
    replied
    Originally posted by pjezek View Post
    Goal! Unfortunately, Phoronix use only Ubuntu with all of its package dependences and not pure neccessary processes. Try use light distros like Archlinux, Debian or Gentoo and light WM/DE in comparison with complex distros like Fedora, OpenSuse, Mandriva, Mageia, (some)Ubuntu etc. I insist on that light distros wit light WM/DE can run more quickly than full Ubuntu installation. Why? Compare system load and communication with HW an you will see. You may also compile a special testing distro with minimum of GUI (apps and frontends needed only) to get "net" results.
    The issue here is open vs closed driver performances. Comparison of stock ubuntu with stock windows 8 seems fair, specially for most users. Comparisons of unity with lights WM/DE (Xfce, LDXE, OpenBox...) are available at phoronix and they do not run quickly. The same as a comparison of ubuntu to Archlinux: Arch speed advantages are minimal.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjezek
    replied
    Originally posted by j2723 View Post
    Michael, could you do similar benchmarks for other Distributions? Would be interesting...
    Goal! Unfortunately, Phoronix use only Ubuntu with all of its package dependences and not pure neccessary processes. Try use light distros like Archlinux, Debian or Gentoo and light WM/DE in comparison with complex distros like Fedora, OpenSuse, Mandriva, Mageia, (some)Ubuntu etc. I insist on that light distros wit light WM/DE can run more quickly than full Ubuntu installation. Why? Compare system load and communication with HW an you will see. You may also compile a special testing distro with minimum of GUI (apps and frontends needed only) to get "net" results.
    Last edited by pjezek; 03-31-2013, 11:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pawlerson
    replied
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    Here I tested 3 cards with all Killing Floor renderes on Highest. Pretty interesting I would say...

    http://steamcommunity.com/app/221410...4089658431267/

    Of course I used KDE 4.8 with Kanotix.
    It seems this game isn't optimized for Linux. We'll see how L4D2 will perform.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X