Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 30 Is Performing Great - Intel Core i9 & AMD Threadripper Benchmarks

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

  • Fedora 30 Is Performing Great - Intel Core i9 & AMD Threadripper Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Fedora 30 Is Performing Great - Intel Core i9 & AMD Threadripper Benchmarks

    As the first of our benchmarks for Fedora 30 that is set to be released on Tuesday, here are some benchmarks comparing Fedora 29, Fedora 29 with current updates, and Fedora 30 on Intel Core i9 7980XE and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX HEDT platforms. Fedora 30 benchmarks on other systems are coming as well.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=27796

  • #2
    These benchmarks look enticing. Might be worth trying again.

    In the past, I found that the large number of needed packages missing from its repository meant that you had to go with 3rd party repositories or sources, and that those quickly led to broken dependencies. Probably the worst of the major distros at handling dependencies for anything from outside of its walled garden in my experience. An area where Debian really shines.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by andyprough View Post
      An area where Debian really shines.
      Not from my experience, even GNU software needs PPAs if you want recent stable versions of software (which isn't asking for much). From my experience, Arch is the best distro in this regard, the only thing I needed an external repo for back in the day was wine-staging, and they added it to their official repos soon afterward. AUR is mostly needed for less popular games and proprietary software they can't package.

      As for debian, their distro has possibly the worst installer out there, I've had few successful installs, and some fail spectacularly (like creating a block device named fstab, where the boot usb stick got enumerated as /dev/sda) or running into hardware so new that their ancient kernel can't recognize the network card and refuses to proceed (that was around June 2018 with a Coffee Lake box) even if sid should run just fine. Oh, and don't get me started about broken dependencies caused by PPAs, their alternatives system that's a nightmare to use if you want a suckless environment (symlinking manually ins't fun, but their tool just won't support pointing to arbitrary binaries), as well as broken PPAs after distro upgrades.

      Comment


      • #4
        Gcc + all the shiny Glibc math speedups?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by andyprough View Post
          These benchmarks look enticing. Might be worth trying again.

          In the past, I found that the large number of needed packages missing from its repository meant that you had to go with 3rd party repositories or sources, and that those quickly led to broken dependencies. Probably the worst of the major distros at handling dependencies for anything from outside of its walled garden in my experience. An area where Debian really shines.
          There are no packages "missing". Some packages are simply not allowed in the Fedora repo's. More info here:
          https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/WhatToPackage
          TL;DR nothing with patents, shady licenses, binary-only or illegal stuff.

          Broken dependencies are often user-error (PEBKAC). Install crappy versioned RPMs from crappy random repo's that replace distro-provided RPMs and off course you'll get problems. EPEL and RPMFusion are great and are sufficient for the majority of use-cases. FWIW DNF (libsolv) in Fedora 29 & 30 handles deps very well and runs circles around apt-get.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View Post

            Not from my experience, even GNU software needs PPAs if you want recent stable versions of software (which isn't asking for much). From my experience, Arch is the best distro in this regard, the only thing I needed an external repo for back in the day was wine-staging, and they added it to their official repos soon afterward. AUR is mostly needed for less popular games and proprietary software they can't package.

            As for debian, their distro has possibly the worst installer out there, I've had few successful installs, and some fail spectacularly (like creating a block device named fstab, where the boot usb stick got enumerated as /dev/sda) or running into hardware so new that their ancient kernel can't recognize the network card and refuses to proceed (that was around June 2018 with a Coffee Lake box) even if sid should run just fine. Oh, and don't get me started about broken dependencies caused by PPAs, their alternatives system that's a nightmare to use if you want a suckless environment (symlinking manually ins't fun, but their tool just won't support pointing to arbitrary binaries), as well as broken PPAs after distro upgrades.
            Haven't had to use PPA's, mainly because of the massive amount of packages available through official repositories or as deb files elsewhere. Debian's dpkg handler for external deb keeps things well organized.

            AUR's were a complete mess when I was on Arch, and were not recommended by Arch. If I recall correctly, most Arch users will refuse to help you if you screw up with packages from AUR's.

            Another distro that really handles external packages well is openSUSE, both through the default handling of not changing vendor versions when updating, and by pushing most external packages through the openSUSE build service which has built-in dependency handling.

            Comment


            • #7
              My workstation was first built with F25, steadily upgraded over the past few years to current F29. Like any new OS release, I like to give it a few months to reduce potential growing pains, before upgrading. Probably late summer I'll make the move to F30.

              That said, it's nice to see AMD bringing such strong competition for intel. AMD has always offered more performance per dollar, and as such, the smart money has always used AMD. It's refreshing however to see AMD meet intel eye-to-eye at the very highest performance tier!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by andyprough View Post
                as deb files elsewhere
                This misses the entire point of package management, as you won't get updates via your package manager. It's even worse than Windows, as you might run into broken libs, because they won't get bundled in the package.

                Originally posted by andyprough View Post
                AUR's were a complete mess when I was on Arch, and were not recommended by Arch. If I recall correctly, most Arch users will refuse to help you if you screw up with packages from AUR's.
                There are plenty of broken packages, and some come with malware (hey, that kind of sounds like NPM). If you check pkgbuilds and pick what to use wisely, it's not a big issue besides waiting for them to build (and compress if you forget to disable that in your makepkg config. There are plenty of AUR wrappers that handle both normal and AUR packages at the same time, but they die pretty often, so there's quite a bit of switching around involved, and some changing of habits (and aliases in your shell rc file). Packages that repackage .debs are pretty good (things like Chrome among others if someone still needs to use that over chromium), some proprietary stuff works pretty well (Vritualbox extensions) and I've referenced PKGBUILDs from AUR to compile software before.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View Post
                  This misses the entire point of package management, as you won't get updates via your package manager. It's even worse than Windows, as you might run into broken libs, because they won't get bundled in the package.
                  As I said, that's what you use dpkg for. Updates are up to the user in that situation, as they would be with anyone grabbing completely external files on any distro. But apt-get does an admirable job of figuring out when you might be trying to do something that will break a deb that dpkg installed. Again, possibly the best at this is openSUSE.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by andyprough View Post
                    In the past, I found that the large number of needed packages missing from its repository meant that you had to go with 3rd party repositories or sources, and that those quickly led to broken dependencies. Probably the worst of the major distros at handling dependencies for anything from outside of its walled garden in my experience. An area where Debian really shines.
                    My experience is opposite! I find everything "extra" needed for Fedora in one place, RPM Fusion, which is tested against a specific Fedora release. With the Debian family it's always a mix of separately-maintained PPAs that often do not work together and are definitely not upgraded together.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X