Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 64-bit More Competitive Against Mac OS X

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

  • slyn
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    It is 32 bit with 64 bit capabilities, but who cares even if it was 16 bit? This is MacOSX. Do I have an option when I buy it? Nope! Can I change it? No again. They chose their OS to be like that and they promote it as it is. Do you think they are wrong? Change OS then (I'm talking in general). Linux on the other hand is 64 bit for over 5 years ago but I still have the option for 32 bit if I want. So I can test both flavours and see what suits me best. That's why we were bitching around to see benchmarks with the 64 bit Ubuntu as well. Who knows... when and if Applet decides to make a pure 64 bit MacOSX, Linux maybe is 128 bit by then... The mac users will argue then that their OS isn't 128 yet?
    I don't know if your joking or not, but in about a month OS 10.6 will be coming out that will be fully 64 bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • L33F3R
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    Yup but you aren't going afterall to buy a mac-mini or an Intel VGA for a game station. Even the 16 FPS of MacOSX make the game unplayable. The only option is ATI or NVIDIA VGA and there Linux goes very well.
    Dont forget that you could get twice the hardware for the cost of 1 mac

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by slyn View Post
    You seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that OS X is a (mostly) 32 bit OS. The changes when switching from 32 bit to 64 bit will make the most difference when doing things like video and audio encoding.
    It is 32 bit with 64 bit capabilities, but who cares even if it was 16 bit? This is MacOSX. Do I have an option when I buy it? Nope! Can I change it? No again. They chose their OS to be like that and they promote it as it is. Do you think they are wrong? Change OS then (I'm talking in general). Linux on the other hand is 64 bit for over 5 years ago but I still have the option for 32 bit if I want. So I can test both flavours and see what suits me best. That's why we were bitching around to see benchmarks with the 64 bit Ubuntu as well. Who knows... when and if Applet decides to make a pure 64 bit MacOSX, Linux maybe is 128 bit by then... The mac users will argue then that their OS isn't 128 yet?

    Leave a comment:


  • slyn
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    Yup and the most interesting for me is the fact that while OSX is being promoted as a multimedia station it was well behind at video/audio encoding!
    You seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that OS X is a (mostly) 32 bit OS. The changes when switching from 32 bit to 64 bit will make the most difference when doing things like video and audio encoding.

    Leave a comment:


  • mendieta
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    Yup and the most interesting for me is the fact that while OSX is being promoted as a multimedia station it was well behind at video/audio encoding!

    Yes! The other interesting thing to note is that both in Mac and Ubuntu the tests show a couple very clear bottlenecks here and there (places where they get trounced by a factor 3 to 5). These should be looked at! (sometimes these thing are just unavoidable, like if one filesystem is tuned for throughput and the other one for latency, well, in some tests one will look bad, and in some others the other will)

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Compile benchmarks to compare between distros or mac os are pretty much useless. 64 bit compile time is always faster than 32 bit. But when you create binary packages for a certain system you have to use the default compiler otherwise that will lead to problems. It does not help me when i know gcc 4.4 is faster than 4.3. I do not select a distro/compiler because of the used compiler, thats just a side effect. If you do not need to provide packages for others you can on the other hand install the latest gcc or intel compilers to tune your binaries for max speed.

    Graphics related tests done with onboard vga, well that must be a joke too, because no gamer uses onboard intel for serious gaming.

    Some other tests show the impact of the underlying filesystem, thats of course interesting, but also nothing to decide for or against a system.

    Most OS X users want a nice looking gui, but those tests are usually not critical for that decision and nobody would use Linux for higher speed ratings. There must be other reasons to consider.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by mendieta View Post
    I just went through the numbers, I may be off by won or two, but Ubuntu-64 one 15 tests, Mac 13, Ubuntu 32-bit won 1. And this includes 4 or 5 graphics tests, where there is an obvious regression in the Intel drivers.

    In terms of "sweeps" (tests won by a factor two or more), I recorded 5 for mac and 4 for Ubuntu. Again, most sweeps for Mac are Graphics.

    So, it looks to me as if, apart from the graphics regression, Ubuntu 64 bit performs better overall.
    Yup and the most interesting for me is the fact that while OSX is being promoted as a multimedia station it was well behind at video/audio encoding!

    Leave a comment:


  • mendieta
    replied
    More "Competitive"?

    I just went through the numbers, I may be off by won or two, but Ubuntu-64 one 15 tests, Mac 13, Ubuntu 32-bit won 1. And this includes 4 or 5 graphics tests, where there is an obvious regression in the Intel drivers.

    In terms of "sweeps" (tests won by a factor two or more), I recorded 5 for mac and 4 for Ubuntu. Again, most sweeps for Mac are Graphics.

    So, it looks to me as if, apart from the graphics regression, Ubuntu 64 bit performs better overall.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    Originally posted by L4Linux View Post
    I am a Linux user too, but I have to admit that the 3d games benchmark is WAY MORE important than the openssl signs/second...
    Unless we don't want Linux as a gaming platform.I know I want.
    Chess is enough gaming entertainment for me "Gamerz" can pay the Windowz tax for all I care, though having 3D performance for things like Google Earth is nice. BTW, the gaming FPS benchmark here is pretty meaningless, other than proving that the game in question's performance is GPU-bound.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Well without the comparison urls you can never be sure if the results are really done on 32 or 64 bit.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X