Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Antergos, Manjaro, CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora & OpenSUSE Performance Showdown

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

  • Antergos, Manjaro, CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora & OpenSUSE Performance Showdown

    Phoronix: Antergos, Manjaro, CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora & OpenSUSE Performance Showdown

    With Ubuntu 15.10, Fedora 23, and openSUSE 42.1 Leap all having been released in the past week, for your open-source benchmarking pleasure today is a comparison of these Linux distributions along with some other modern Linux distributions: Antergos 2015.10-Rolling, Debian 8.2, CentOS 7, and Manjaro 15.11.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=22362

  • #2
    I applaud Debian Jessie was included with standard installation.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm happy that default Antergos installation performs well compared to the other distributions. On the other hand I'm tempted to give Fedora a try but I'm not ready to give up AUR and rolling release.

      Comment


      • #4
        But all this tests with so extreme highend configurations (20-core Xeon) IMHO ends to be misleading to have a true feedback for the typical scenario, I don't think even 1% of us have such Datacenter-level hardware to manage.
        It's interesitng to observe how the load spans in multiple-cores... that's it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Is this related to the schedulers or something? How come Ubuntu is one of the fastest in almost every benchmark? EDIT: I guess this is a stupid question, most distros seem to show small differences in performance when using similar stacks... doesn't seem to be suprising.

          The slowest ones are using XFS and GCC 4.6.
          Last edited by asdfblah; 11-06-2015, 03:04 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            I always have a tough time translating these samples into something I might experience in real life. Are the individual tests intended to assess a single characteristic, in a way that controls for everything else?

            Would also be interesting to see how CentOS and Leap would test on Ext4, or the others on XFS.

            Comment


            • #7
              Personally I find the frame-time results to be the most interesting:
              Seeing what a difference a generic kernel vs. a so-called "low-latency" kernel makes to the maximum frame-time latency is just astounding!
              I mean, how come Arch Linux & all the distros based on it default to a (soft) real-time kernel when there is a clear NEGATIVE impact associated with doing so?
              The latency doesn't improve; no, it almost doubles when compared to Fedora or Ubuntu!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post
                Personally I find the frame-time results to be the most interesting:
                Seeing what a difference a generic kernel vs. a so-called "low-latency" kernel makes to the maximum frame-time latency is just astounding!
                I mean, how come Arch Linux & all the distros based on it default to a (soft) real-time kernel when there is a clear NEGATIVE impact associated with doing so?
                The latency doesn't improve; no, it almost doubles when compared to Fedora or Ubuntu!
                advantage of realtime kernel is guaranteed predictable/consistent latency, not better performance where only result you can see is input being better while frame loss is negligible. and no distro in this test uses it. steamos is as far as i know only distro on desktop that does. also, desktop with realtime kernel just feels weird and choppy

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by justmy2cents View Post

                  advantage of realtime kernel is guaranteed predictable/consistent latency, not better performance where only result you can see is input being better while frame loss is negligible. and no distro in this test uses it. steamos is as far as i know only distro on desktop that does. also, desktop with realtime kernel just feels weird and choppy
                  Where do You see me talking about performance? I only talked about latency...
                  Speaking of which, if the maximum latency of a frame is a lot higher on a distro with a so-called "low-latency" kernel, then users are going to notice these delayed frames, which will negatively impact their perception of the fluidity of a game!

                  Also, You're incorrect regarding the use of (soft) real-time kernels:
                  SteamOS uses a regular "generic" kernel, whereas both Antergos & Manjaro do in fact use one! ("uname -a" -> 'PREEMPT' is NOT your friend!)

                  And if Michael will show us a comparison of frametimes on both Windows 10 and Linux, then everyone will be able to see that Linux is in fact the better platform to game on! (Well, IF the ports are of similar quality and a generic kernel is used...)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    @Linuxxx

                    Can you tell me, why is it that on Fedora i basically can't use Firefox as a browser without NoScript addon (and even then it still ain't great) because just a few websites loading/running scripts makes the responsiveness of the system turn to garbage, even the little animated loading circles on the Firefox tabs jolt around and look like they're animated at about 1 frame every 2 seconds, but an openSUSE Gnome or Manjaro Gnome installation on the exact same hardware has no such issue?
                    (EDIT: and this is just one of many examples of resonsivness problems i noticed with Fedora)

                    I'll get around to directly testing how much full PREEMPT is effecting this at some point, but i'd be interested to hear your thoughts now anyways.
                    Last edited by korrode; 11-06-2015, 11:11 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X