Originally posted by 1LordAnubis
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Is Arch Linux Really Faster Than Ubuntu?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Ragas View PostHow 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.
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
-
Originally posted by b15hop View PostThat 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by grege View PostI ran Gentoo for a year then one day just said enough is enough.
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by 1LordAnubis View PostArch 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).
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by grigi View PostRemember, 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
Comment