Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Arch Linux Really Faster Than Ubuntu?

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by 1LordAnubis View Post
    Arch packages are optimized by default to i686 in the 32 bit repos, ubuntu by comparison is compiled for i386, i believe
    IIRC, Ubuntu packages are by default compiled with 486-class instructions to maximize backward compatibility (you'd be surprised how many processors only support some Pentium or Pentium Pro instructions), but otherwise optimized for modern processors (in terms of instruction scheduling, etc.). Some packages also have built-in support for detecting the CPU family/features at runtime and choosing an appropriate optimized code path (often used for things like MMX and SSE/SSE2/SSE3, which don't really line up with "i686" or any other such designation). You only see "i386" everywhere because that's Debian's name for the x86 architecture, chosen ca. 15 years ago.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by Ragas View Post
      How did you do that and what were the key steps? I have a very slow netbook too and I want to optimize it.
      The things that hold me back from it is that I don't think it's too clever compiling all stuff on such machine (wich of course could be worked around) and eventually my girlfriend would kill me, if nothing worked on her computer, because I simply didn't configure it till then.
      As per the one Intel guys recommendation I use these compliter flags:
      CFLAGS="-Os -march=native -pipe -msse -msse2 -msse3 -mssse3 -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -fstrength-reduce -fexpensive-optimizations -finline-functions -funroll-loops -foptimize-register-move"

      That is with i686 architecture.

      Disclaimer: Compiling on the Atom isn't too bad, but note that I didn't use the box as a desktop, but as an always-on-server, so there is very little packages installed.

      Disclaimer2: Sounds like you think your girfriend will kill you... Is it really worth it for a 10-20% speedup?

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by b15hop View Post
        That customisation is what allows you to fine tune the OS to give you speed. It is much more headache free than gentoo, even though gentoo is more or less the same. Except the whole portage nightmare... So give me Arch any day.
        My experience differs, portage is very easy once you figure it out, and has all the tools verify and keep package consistency. Compile time can be bad, but even my 4 year old core duo notebook was fast enough (except Openoffice, which took HOURS)

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by grege View Post
          I ran Gentoo for a year then one day just said enough is enough.
          Lol! I guess you ran ~unstable? Almost every Gentoo user steps in the same quagmire. On Gentoo it is too easy to go to bleeding edge, and then realize you are bleeding dry.

          Honestly, when running mostly "stable" package updates don't happen that often, and I only run "testing" per-package when I know about something I want. That way, I can about once every 4-8 weeks do an update.

          Still I wouldn't install Gentoo for my parents or girlfriend.

          Comment


          • #55
            arch vs ubuntu

            I do see significant 3d performance differences. This is not because of compositing managers or anything like that, I tested it with plain X. Warcraft 3 had 150 fps on Arch, 90 fps on Ubuntu. But.. Urban terror had 120 fps (max) on Ubuntu and 90 fps on Arch.

            I don't think Arch is really faster, maybe some. The main reason for me using Arch is the ease of changing it my way, and keeping it that way without crossing your fingers.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by 1LordAnubis View Post
              Arch packages are optimized by default to i686 in the 32 bit repos, ubuntu by comparison is compiled for i386, i believe (So a benchmark on a 32 bit cpu would be interesting, I suppose). On 64 bit, however, the difference of compilation between distros (even gentoo) is negligible.

              Both Arch and Ubuntu use the *same* software, Arch is just often a case of a bit newer software. Benchmarking is basically just between different versions of the same software.
              What Arch offers (outside of 32 bit performance) is a philosophy where you start from a small base, and work your way up in an organized fashion, and easily maintain a clean system for years to come. These two distros are packaged quite differently, and depending on the person, one or the other can make life a lot easier.

              Arch makes it easy for me to achieve a balance between performance, and time investment, since all I had to do was learn from the wiki the basics of the system. With this understanding now in hand, system upkeep and anything new is easy, and doesn't consume my time (like running gentoo would).
              That's my point for using Arch actually. Gentoo and anything else like it, you end up spending more time maintaining than doing actual work. All that for no speed increase simply because portage is so bloated to begin with.

              On the arch website they stated that i686 is not as well supported. They aim to be a fast and light weight distro. Still trying to be at the forefront of distro technology so really it should still be faster than Ubuntu. Much like it was back in the i686 days. Another thing the article doesn't gather is different combinations of hardware comparing the two distro's. What's to say AMD is faster or intel. Or nvidia over ATi etc.. Might all change on a different distro. So many different variables come into play.

              @Grigi
              I agree with your compiler options. But that's for my own software. Usually I just follow what is stated in the README for that kind of stuff or let autoconfigure do all that. I spent over a year on portage and still had too much trouble. So as you say each to their own. But back then I was only on a single core 1.7ghz Athlon with a 160GB hdd. So that might be why I didn't like portage. Not sure if I was running unstable or stable, but I'm sure that I tried every option. Thing is with Arch, I can use unstable packages and still have good luck. (so far so good I should say....)

              @Silverwing
              Yes. Sometimes the whole crossing fingers thing is the biggest hurdle. Those gifted few out there that don't mind a really screwed up machine. Can get absolutely anything up and running. Well good on them. I've even seen people get debian working on a screwed up mac machine. But not everyone can be f...d and some people just want to customize their distro, then use it for whatever reason. One day I might just go screw it and go on to Ubuntu... who knows.

              Comment


              • #57
                Remember, none of these distributions don't change. So if you are comparing a 6-year old portage to brand new Arch...

                My point was exactly the same, except I spend almost no time in my Gentoo "maintaining" the system... far less than my Ubuntu desktop at home.

                But also, whatever, stick to what you know.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by grigi View Post
                  Remember, none of these distributions don't change. So if you are comparing a 6-year old portage to brand new Arch...

                  My point was exactly the same, except I spend almost no time in my Gentoo "maintaining" the system... far less than my Ubuntu desktop at home.

                  But also, whatever, stick to what you know.
                  More like comparing at least 2y old portage to currant Arch. I have tried many different flavours of Gentoo and found the live install the easiest. Arch has definitely changed I can say that for sure. I did go from Arch to gentoo and stayed with Gentoo for a year. Back on Arch for 2+ years now. Gentoo was good, I like how you can compile things to be interchangeable with each other. I like how there were so many package compilation options. That also might be why gentoo went from being so popular and then falling. The distro grew very fast and couldn't evolve fast enough to cover the growth rate. It might be all good now but I'm not in a great hurry to test it out again. I would call it the best system to learn more advanced concepts. That way when you go back to a more simple distro, it's easier to appreciate the effort the community has put in.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    True,true.
                    I only got introduced to Gentoo as it was waning in popularity. I still think it is an ideal distro for a systems developer, because we need an overkill set of devel stuff, so that we can experiment.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      When gentoo with good cflags vs ubuntu?

                      When gentoo with good cflags vs ubuntu?
                      Developer of Ultracopier/Supercopier and of the game CatchChallenger

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X