Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu vs. Arch Linux On The ASUS ROG Strix G15 / Ryzen 9 5900HX

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

    This is usually more due to kernel configurations than anything else. If you have a kernel that is tweaked for latency/realtime it will always perform worse in batch style tasks (including multithreaded).

    Unless you are doing something like Intel's Clear linux where you recompile everything with optimal flags for your architecture you can typically replicate any kind of results with the correct kernel settings (or even patches if you want something like realtime Linux).
    Michael usually sticks with the defaults unless he is testing specific kernels, like today's comparison of Liquorix and XanMod kernels. Are you saying that Arch is pushing for a realtime or low-latency kernel to be the default now? I haven't installed it for about a year, but I don't recall that being the case.

    The reason Arch typically does poorly in these comparisons is simply that it runs with newer packages with their own issues and regressions.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by curfew View Post
      I first gave up on Ubuntu and moved to "plain" Debian... Then I gave up Debian and moved to Arch. For the same reason as you: I just want to use my computer and not have to deal with the OS doing things behind my back nor up to my face.
      That's funny. I went from Arch to Ubuntu for the same reason.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post
        What most Arch Linux fans fail to realize is that most PC users do NOT want to babysit their OS all day long; they want to setup once and then be good to go!

        That is the reason why the Ubuntu LTS base is so popular in the Linux world (including all derivatives like Linux Mint):
        You get to enjoy an enterprise-grade foundation that is properly tested across a very wide userbase.
        And if it works on your current hardware, then it will keep doing so without random updates breaking it every so often like it always inevitably will on Arch Linux! (Been there, done that...)
        I don't use Arch, however I use a rolling distribution (Tumbleweed) and I assure you that lazy as I am I don't think about babysitting.
        I installed Tumbleweed four years ago and all I have to do is update once a week. Of course there are many updates, but I do them while I work on the PC often without even checking.
        In 4 years the only problems were the thunderstorms that a couple of times caused a power blackout while updating the system, but luckily Tumbleweed uses btrfs-snapper and I was able to restart with the previous snapshot without problems, restoring the system.
        For what is my 10 years experience in Ubuntu and 4 years on Tumbleweed, I can tell you that I have had to format more often with Ubuntu Lts. But that's just my experience.

        Edit. In my opinion the benchmarks on rolling distributions do not make much sense due to their continuous updating, most likely this benchmark next week would give different results.
        Last edited by Charlie68; 26 July 2021, 04:19 PM.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by krzyzowiec View Post

          That's funny. I went from Arch to Ubuntu for the same reason.
          I've had them both up and running for years. Desktop usage is very different from servers.
          I eventually moved off Kubuntu, because as a developer I need the latest packages for a lot of things and hunting for PPAs was eating more time than those few seconds -O3 would have earned me.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by Charlie68 View Post

            Edit. In my opinion the benchmarks on rolling distributions do not make much sense due to their continuous updating, most likely this benchmark next week would give different results.

            The Phoronix Benchmarks must FLOW.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
              As an actual Arch Linux user who didn't bring up that argument, "but Arch Linux!" only matters if you know how to configure your system for performance. It helps to know to install stuff like cpupower (for the systemd service) and change the scheduler off of schedutil or ondemand over to performance, to go Perpetually High with patches or to install one of the umpteen AUR kernels, and other things like that.

              And after you do all of that, "but Arch Linux!" still might not mean shit. Just because Arch is more plain and generic by default doesn't mean it'll be faster. Sometimes that not-plain and not-generic stuff other distributions patch in make things faster. Sometimes they don't.

              I use Arch because it gives me full control over my system, because the documentation is really good, because the PKGBUILD format and AUR allow me to quickly and easily try new things in a manner that is better for my system than "make && make install", because when I install a program I'm getting what the developer of the program released and not some Debian maintainers interpretation of that program via 21 patches to set defaults and tweak themes. None my reasons are because Arch is 1337 and faster than the rest. That's what Gentoo is for.

              And as a long-term Phoronix reader, unless there is some crazy bullshit happening most every distribution performs around the same. Pick your distribution based on merit, features, support, community, and capability. Don't pick your distribution because some jackasses on Reddit like to post "btw I use Arch".
              BTW I use Arch.

              But yeah, I use Arch because it has the latest stable software versions. Which on AMD is a requirement because everything is done well after hardware launch.

              ​​​​​

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by perpetually high View Post
                You’re being a hater. I leave the benchmarks to the pros like Michael. I was just providing some context.
                Why are you getting so bent out of shape over this? I'm just trying to encourage you to do some critical thinking. You've made some adjustments to your system configuration, expecting better performance but your own benchmarks show that there is little to no difference. That should tell you that something doesn't work as you expect and prompt you to investigate what's up.

                Originally posted by perpetually high View Post
                And the results are real, bud. My Haswell machine flies. I know when it didn’t. And it does now. A lot has to do with overall GNOME improvements though. Can make any comment you want, I know my machine like the back of my hand.
                Several years of experience taught me never to trust "seat of the pants" benchmarks. Human brain is easily influenced by expectations. That's why we developed statistics and rigorous testing protocols.

                Originally posted by perpetually high View Post
                Why in the world would I not take the liberty to compile my own supercharged kernel? Just cause you don’t like it no one else should? Call yourself a Linux pro and don’t even compile your own? But you probably have an 8c/16t. Gtfo.
                I don't call myself Linux anything. I also don't consider compiling my own kernel any kind of "right of Linux passage", partly because compiling the Linux kernel is pretty easy. Do whatever you want with your system, it's your own machine after all. Adjust whatever settings you want, apply as many custom patches as you please. However, when you make a claim that doing this or that improves something, you'd better be ready to provide some proof. If you don't, you shouldn't be surprised when people treat you with skepticism.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by krzyzowiec View Post

                  That's funny. I went from Arch to Ubuntu for the same reason.
                  That's the great thing about Linux, all the open source OS's really, and all the choices we have. If you want something that comes setup so that all you have to do is go to work and play games, you have an option. If you want something that you have to take a little time and setup first, you have an option. If you want to sit down and really tinker and customize either option, you can do that too. If you want to take the time to build it all from source for whatever reason, NSA or 1337 or performance or ???, you have multiple options there as well.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by old_skull View Post

                    5 minutes every week AFTER spending god knows how much setting up the whole thing is not babysitting? So how do I teach my wife doing all this, or do I have to spend 5 minutes every weekend on every PC in my house?

                    What an incredible take. Do you really not get it?
                    Cron? Seriously, how do you manage updates on Windows or any other Linux distribution?

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      I do a triple boot; Arch, Debian Sid and WIndows 10. I use Debian Sid for stability (I know, weird as Sid is the 'unstable branch'). I mean this not in that Arch will randomly give me black screens, but that Debian has a stable branch of software. Arch is 'latest / greatest' versions. So if one day Gnome rolls out an updated version that breaks my current work flow, then I'll always have trusty Debian to not do that. As they take a bit longer to package things, extensions to repair the damage Gnome has done will be available by the time they roll them out. Stable sometimes just means 'uses the older stuff you're used to'.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X