Windows 10 Pro vs. Five Linux Distributions In Various Benchmarks

[Mercyful Fate]

Nice to see Solus Linux in this shoot-out as it is my daily driver on my home computer.
Ikey and his team are doing an excellent job with that distro.

[tildearrow]

Typo:

ALl of these benchmarks were facilitated via the Phoronix Test Suite.

Go, Java, Perl, Python, FFmpeg, and more.

I wish I could rant a little. Is NTSC DV and measuring in seconds rather than FPS seriously more important than H.264?

[alex79]

Nice to see Solus Linux in this shoot-out as it is my daily driver on my home computer.
Ikey and his team are doing an excellent job with that distro.

I'm with you, Solus looked good before but it looks better from one test to the other.

[Etherman]

A wanna see filesystem tests in the mix :-)

[indepe]

I’d find it very interesting if future tests are able to reveal why there are such great differences in netperf round trip results (<1000 T/s vs ~5000 T/s vs ~10000 T/s).

Is it a single cause, or a combination of factors? The Phoronix test lab appears to be ideally equipped to find out.

BTW, some motherboards have two Ethernet ports with two different network controllers, for example.

[Detructor]

I do not understand what was supposed to be tested here. Linux kernel configs? Then you would have to use the same kernel version in all distributions. Windows vs. Linux? Then: Why use different distributions? Also why use a completely outdated kernel (Ubuntu 16.04? You are comparing a 2 year old system against current Windows 1. I don't...what?! What is that going to accomplish?) Also why run server software benchmarks (Go http/json benchmark) on non-server systems?

Also why use an Intel system? With Meltdown patches being applied and still improved upon this isn't actually showing that Windows 10 is slow. It's probably just showing that the Meltdown mitigations have a harsh impact.

[Templar82]

Also why use a completely outdated kernel (Ubuntu 16.04? You are comparing a 2 year old system against current Windows 1. I don't...what?! What is that going to accomplish?)

The current Ubuntu LTS release is usually the most commonly used Linux distro in the world. Currently 16.04.

[theriddick]

So Ubuntu is going to be terrible once Ray-Tracing becomes a thing in video games?

[gregzeng]

The current Ubuntu LTS release is usually the most commonly used Linux distro in the world. Currently 16.04.

Agreed. Soon (next month onwards) the 16,04 will be replaced by the 18.04 ....
but ...
The Ubuntu 16.04 is currently the most used, but not under the Ubuntu brand-name. This "Ubuntu 16.04" is often used by some of the official family members, as well as some of the Ubuntu "community" members. Most of the users are not carrying the "Ubuntu 16.04" brand-name, but another. For example Mint, Zorin, etc, totalling over eighty (80) different brand-names of "living" Ubuntu-based derivatives.

All these Ubuntu 16.04 types do not run the Linux kernel initially installed. Conscientious system administrators will allow the operating system to auto-update to the latest "official" Linux kernel allowed by the operating system designers. Did Phoronix do this? Seems Michael does not know. Otherwise he would know its importance, and openly declare this to be so.

This official Linux kernel general applies to ALL Linux operating systems, not just the Ubuntu-based versions. Ubuntu also has other very, very recent updates to the Linux kernels, which are not recognized by most operating system creators, and most system administrators. The one & only Linux operating system to stay updated with this Ubuntu-kernel repository is the Debian-based Makulu Linux.

Seconds after "The Linux Foundation" releases the raw open-source code, then the Ubuntu web site has ready-compiled, ready to run Linux kernels. Then literally milliseconds later, the Makulu inbuilt update sensor will then detect & notify the system administrator that the latest Linux kernel can be quickly installed into the operating system. Like all Ubuntu-based distributions, these Ubuntu-kernels take just seconds to install, reboot, then run. Reversing from the kernel update, is also easily done, for experienced & skilled system administrators. [BTW: "Makulu" Linux is extremely short-staffed; recommended only to "experts"].

Using these Ubuntu-based Linux kernels allows us to also choose, run, test, & undo any of the Linux kernels, regardless of age, or release candidate numbers. There are several versions of "grub customizer" that make this Linux Kernel selection, promotion-demotion very easy, from a multi-choice menu. The available "talent" however (including myself) are too busy doing other higher priority tasks. Perhaps others might document these easy steps.

To the beginners here, there has never been, and there will never be the "BEST" operating system. Just the most workable "compromise", for this moment. Most "stable" versions of software, including the Linux kernels, have regular "updates". Open-source & Ubuntu-compiled Linux kernels are revised-released every several days. Each official release has the latest "bug-fixes". The usual microcode optimizations for "Sceptre", Meltdown" and the future "flaws", will continue to need better improvements, after the previous improvements have been released.

There will always be other unresolved & unknown bug fixes to to follow. All large & complex programs have compromised optimizations. This is also normal. It explains why Intel can produce an optimized system, just for CPU performance, without regard to very many other factors, such as accountability to past & future provisions.

[DRanged]

All these Ubuntu 16.04 types do not run the Linux kernel initially installed. Conscientious system administrators will allow the operating system to auto-update to the latest "official" Linux kernel allowed by the operating system designers. Did Phoronix do this? Seems Michael does not know. Otherwise he would know its importance, and openly declare this to be so.

AFAIK Michael did use the latest official (production) kernel 4.13.0-37-generic (x86_64) of Ubuntu 16.04 LTS. You never auto-update kernels I certainly don't only after testing if it doesn't play havoc with my system or production servers. As a retired (UNIX) sysadmin (AIX, HP-UX, OS/2, Solaris, True-64 and Linux) learned my lesson well decades ago.