Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

macOS 10.14 Mojave vs. Ubuntu 18.04 LTS vs. Clear Linux Benchmarks

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

  • GruenSein
    replied
    Originally posted by OMTDesign View Post
    I thought MacOS was supposed to be "heavily optimised" for its hardware. All we need to do know is figure out what secret sauce Apple has used to make Final Cut Pro, and copy it to Kdenlive and Openshot and there will be no reason to use MacOS over GNU/Linux.
    I respectfully disagree

    Leave a comment:


  • OMTDesign
    replied
    I thought MacOS was supposed to be "heavily optimised" for its hardware. All we need to do know is figure out what secret sauce Apple has used to make Final Cut Pro, and copy it to Kdenlive and Openshot and there will be no reason to use MacOS over GNU/Linux.

    Leave a comment:


  • M@GOid
    replied
    I do not want to bash people preferences, but considering where we are right now, the Macbook Air was the worst thing that happened on the laptop market, affecting including the once fine Macbook Pro. The Air not only promoted, for a usability point of view, a impractical design, but because it was successful, it dragged the entire industry into a crazy race of slim designs, removing useful features in exchange of looks.

    One thing that most people associates, is that thickness = weight. That is not true at all. You can have a thicker and light machine at the same time. Just to take the 10 years ago Macbook Air launch as example, at the time Toshiba made a laptop that had more ports, including a DVD driver, in a machine that was actually lighter than the Air. Did it looked as cool? Nope.

    And there is the usefulness of being thinner. Does it make easier to carry? Nope, you have to apply force with your fingertips to properly hold it, because the Air is thinner that the curvature of your fingers, while a thicker but equally light laptop did not require that. The space gain inside a bag or backpack? Meaningless.

    In the end, if manufacturers applied 5 mm more thickness in today's designs, laptops would have less problems with throttling, bigger batteries, descent travel keyboards, full-size ports without stupid adapters, etc. And if they want to mask the thickness, the traditional curve on the edges would do the trick.
    Last edited by M@GOid; 28 September 2018, 12:31 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Royi
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post

    Because on each OS most users/developers rely upon the default toolchain... But there are also a number of tests here where that toolchain doesn't come into play anyhow from Go to Perl to Python to PHP, etc.
    Most users use pre built Binaries.
    They don't compile their software (This is a bad habit, in my opinion, of Linux eco system).

    When you say "OS Comparison" someone expect the test tool to have the highest sensitivity to the OS itself.
    But the way you create those test they are most sensitive to compiler used.
    There is no problem using GCC on all systems so I think this is what should be done.

    You can create a new test called "Comparison of Tool Chains" and do what you do above as it is more appropriate naming.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by Royi View Post
    This is just Apple LLVM vs GCC test.
    Why wouldn't you use the same compiler on all platforms?
    Those tests do not test the OS and shouldn't be treated as such.
    Because on each OS most users/developers rely upon the default toolchain... But there are also a number of tests here where that toolchain doesn't come into play anyhow from Go to Perl to Python to PHP, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Royi
    replied
    This is just Apple LLVM vs GCC test.
    Why wouldn't you use the same compiler on all platforms?
    Those tests do not test the OS and shouldn't be treated as such.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by Scellow View Post
    Again, what's the point of comparing two different machines ?
    If we normalize the specs, macOS beat linux

    Please setup a hackintosh, and test with the same machine
    The same system is used the entire time, as stated. Any reported difference in the automatically generated system table just comes down to how each OS exposes the software/hardware.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scellow
    replied
    Again, what's the point of comparing two different machines ?
    If we normalize the specs, macOS beat linux

    Please setup a hackintosh, and test with the same machine

    Leave a comment:


  • GruenSein
    replied
    Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
    Most likely because all their chassis designs, aside from the Mac Pro, have total crap for cooling. The price you pay for being fashionably slim, it seems.
    Might have something to do with it but I am not sure if this is the main reason. My 2014 Retina MBP maintains at least base clock on all eight threads. Yes, it gets warm and the fans spin up, but it doesn't seem like it is throttling much. My guess is that the thermal management in macOS is just more conservative when it comes to bumping up the frequency, which would show mostly in intermittent loads. But anyway, if you are fine with a much thicker, heavier machine, you can get more performance (particularly on the GPU side) than in an MBP. I simply like the form factor, display quality etc. pp. while rendering times are of minor interest to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • torsionbar28
    replied
    Originally posted by GruenSein View Post
    Additionally, macOS tends to be very power conscious when it comes to scheduling. At least in the past, the battery benchmarks seemed to indicate this. All in all, the OS simply isn't made for raw throughput.
    Most likely because all their chassis designs, aside from the Mac Pro, have total crap for cooling. The price you pay for being fashionably slim, it seems.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X