macOS 10.12 Sierra vs. Ubuntu 16.04 Linux Benchmarking

[Guest]

At least windows can usually keep up or even win numerous tests. This crap? You're really just paying for a logo.

Only in graphics.

[Guest]

Aw Michael you're so modest, truth is Ubuntu was way ahead on most benchmarks but there were one offs where MacOS was ahead (and curiously so).

And there must be reason for this. He's earning money on Linux, but his behavior is usually unfair towards it. He was manipulating many times. Saying they were close to each other is nothing, but blatant lie. Linux owned this crap, so he's either blind or lying intentionally (or being paid for).

[Marc Driftmeyer]

The amount of historical ignorance and comparison between pointless tests on ext4 vs. hfs+ is nothing new. Try it with APFS. Quit with this chicken crap Mac mini and test both systems on equivalent Mac mini configurations.

What planet do you reside on Michael that an i5 1.6Ghz Macbook Air running macOS 10.12 Sierra vs. Mac Mini 2.66 Haswell is an equivalent configuration?

Configuring the Mini to benchmark against both Operating Systems.

These tests are sad if you think they're `professional' test harness comparisons.

[jacob]

These are really interesting results apart from the obvious (Clang compiles faster, GCC produces better code, HFS+ is a cow). Such a difference in SQLite must clearly be an artefact, but it seems that for whatever reason OSX also has a clear advantage when it comes to PostgreSQL, Is this one real or is it the same issue? Otherwise it's fascinating to see the two OSes differ so wildly and unpredictably.

[Michael]

The amount of historical ignorance and comparison between pointless tests on ext4 vs. hfs+ is nothing new. Try it with APFS. Quit with this chicken crap Mac mini and test both systems on equivalent Mac mini configurations.

What planet do you reside on Michael that an i5 1.6Ghz Macbook Air running macOS 10.12 Sierra vs. Mac Mini 2.66 Haswell is an equivalent configuration?

Configuring the Mini to benchmark against both Operating Systems.

These tests are sad if you think they're `professional' test harness comparisons.

What are you talking about? Both systems were tested with both sets of operating systems.... Two systems were used to represent different systems for a more diverse range of data rather than just testing on a lone system and then proclaiming victory, it's not for comparing Mini vs. MBA performance.

[labyrinth153]

Not sure why its a blatant lie either. Mac os is going to get owned in disk tests because of hfs. Apfs should be on for boot volumes next year or so, you can already test it on non boot volumes and external drives. Have to use diskutil to create it.

As a user of both I can assure you Linux filesystems are better.

[wizard69]

I just installed arch on my base model mini. I had to do some manual copying to get grub to boot with efi. Performance with geekbench is slightly higher than osx (and osx to windows 10). The only thing I noticed is reading from the disk is way better on Linux, applications start instantly and have a huge delay on os x. I think once applefs and metal roll out things will be better. I am debating if I should build a powerful zareason arch/windows box or suffer a little for a nice imac.

if anyone wants some osx vs linux/windows benchmarks I can run some.

run all you want. I run Mac OS on my laptop because it is reliable, even fun. Speed is a different issue, in some cases it is very fast. It does appear that Apples ancient file system is a big issue. It is notable that Apple knows this thus the new file system that will eventually get here.

[molecule-eye]

Kind of sad when Apple performs worse on their own hardware.

Their own hardware in the x86 world is just what everyone is using, so your statement doesn't make it sound any worse that they got trampled by linux. If we could run linux/Android on their ARM stuff, that would be interesting.

[molecule-eye]

I run linux on my own hardware, but I also have a Broadwell Celeron Chromebook (quite snappy) and two Macbooks (a Pro and Air). I can't stand how slow some of the Mac software is on fast hardware. Time Machine is a prime example. Backing up a couple GB of data takes ridiculously long. I can do rsync "snapshots" of the same amount of data in a fraction of the time over the same interface to the same drive (of roughly the same kind of data). The only advantage of macOS is its wide support.

[carewolf]

Kind of sad when Apple performs worse on their own hardware.

Yeah. I never understood how OS X manages to suck as much as it does. It is amazingly slow and crappy.