Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 11.10 vs. Fedora 16: Boot Speed, Power Consumption

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

  • Ubuntu 11.10 vs. Fedora 16: Boot Speed, Power Consumption

    Phoronix: Ubuntu 11.10 vs. Fedora 16: Boot Speed, Power Consumption

    In this article is the first of several articles comparing the recently released Fedora 16 to Ubuntu 11.10. This first article is looking at the boot performance and power consumption from several different notebooks when performing clean installs of Fedora Verne and Ubuntu Oneiric Ocelot.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16725

  • lsatenstein
    replied
    How often do you boot your system

    I boot my system every few days. The fact that it takes 10 seconds longer for Fedora is not significant. I also have UBUNTU.
    When all is running for graphical user interface, the response times are not significantly different. I cannot type as fast as a screen can change. So this evaluation has little meaining to me.

    What is significant is how each software performs when acting under heavy load. That is, run a background job doing some I/O and some compute, and now measure foreground speed for such things as large file copy, or a set of compilations. And while the background is running, to then measure foreground response.

    My evaluation is that after stabilization, both Ubuntu and Fedora are essentially offering the same performance for the same software (libreoffice as an example, or firefox, etc.)

    Dont bother cutting hairs into four.

    Leave a comment:


  • devius
    replied
    Originally posted by Cyborg16 View Post
    20W on an EEE PC? I thought those things were meant to be quite efficient. Nouveau driver all round; does that W510 have switchable graphics so you can test with intel graphics too?
    Yeah, that's pretty awful. I have an Atom N270 based netbook that idles at around 8-10W, but it's a mobile cpu with 2,5W TDP and one of the first generation Atoms. The Atom 330 is a desktop part with 8W TDP and the chipset and a separate nvidia gpu on top of that, so that probably explains the terrible near 20W idle power.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Why are the bootcharts scaled? Thats stupid as you can not read em...

    Leave a comment:


  • Ansla
    replied
    Actually, Ubuntu might not have even the largest install base, a lot of Ubuntu users switched to Mint because "it's like the old Ubuntu, no Unity". Certainly distrowatch stats show Mint overtaking Ubuntu and also a lot of my Ubuntu using coleagues made the switch, though it's hard to estimate the overall user base.

    Leave a comment:


  • gilboa
    replied
    The sad thing about this benchmark is that the next time Phoronix does a * vs. Linux benchmark (* being OSX, Windows, BSD, etc) Ubuntu will still be used as the reference Linux distribution, even though Fedora out performed it across the board. (Not only graphical performance due to X.org version - but also C-ray performance [page 4]).
    Now undoubtedly there are better performing distributions out there that can give both Fedora and Ubuntu a run for their money (In my experience [and I'm an avid Fedora users], using XFCE instead of GShell 3.2 has a major effect on performance - at least on low end machines) - isn't it high time the reference Linux distribution will be elected based on, errr, performance instead of install base size?

    - Gilboa

    Leave a comment:


  • AdamW
    replied
    performance improvements are much more likely to happen in the kernel modules or mesa anyway, these days.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaemonFC
    replied
    Originally posted by pszilard View Post
    Not really - unless you are a Fedora fanatic.

    It's more like: Fedora 16 has better graphics performance than Ubuntu 11.10 because the former uses X v1.11.1, while the latter only 1.10.4. Upgrade the X in the Ubuntu and I bet the difference will be way smaller.
    1.10 to 1.11 doesn't have any performance benefits. It's a pile of several hundred fixes and cleanups. Ubuntu ships obsolete versions of it to satisfy proprietary hardware drivers, while Fedora doesn't. It would have been backing out all of 1 patch that changed the video API for Ubuntu to use 1.11, but none of them seem to be smart enough to do that.

    They already patch the server they do ship to be able to run Unity. If you use the real upstream X server, Unity won't start.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdamW
    replied
    pszilard: honestly, it's long been my belief that there's unlikely to be any real noticeable difference in performance between two distros with similar configurations (same desktop, same services loaded). there just isn't a whole lot of stuff we can do to make our distro magically perform better than anyone else's. we're all building the same code in the end.

    Leave a comment:


  • Givrix
    replied
    Originally posted by pszilard View Post
    Not really - unless you are a Fedora fanatic.

    It's more like: Fedora 16 has better graphics performance than Ubuntu 11.10 because the former uses X v1.11.1, while the latter only 1.10.4. Upgrade the X in the Ubuntu and I bet the difference will be way smaller.
    Actually it's probably more about comparing Unity and Gnome Shell.
    It has some meaning for beginners to compare distros for out of the box performance. But for specialists and developers, it would be welcomed to compare things on comparable basis with least factors changing.
    Like in this very informative test :
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...anagers1&num=1
    These results should lead to reproduce these benchmarks against new versions of the desktop managers.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X