PC-BSD 7.1 vs. Kubuntu 9.04 Benchmarks

[phoronix]

Phoronix: PC-BSD 7.1 vs. Kubuntu 9.04 Benchmarks

Earlier this month PC-BSD 7.1 was released, which is based upon the FreeBSD 7.1 stable release, but of course with the extra packages and changes that make PC-BSD an easier to use BSD-based desktop operating system. PC-BSD 7.1 ships with X.Org 7.4 and KDE 4.2.2 installed along with many other packages when using the x86 or x64 DVD installations. Though with the Phoronix Test Suite now having enhanced support for PC-BSD, we decided to see how well PC-BSD 7.1 performs against Kubuntu 9.04.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13732

[xeros]

Nice comparision of performance on both systems. I've been waiting for such test :-) Could you do some comparision of Kubuntu, Ubuntu, Xubuntu and Ubuntu Lite, too?

[kraftman]

@xeros

This benchmark shows GCC 4.3.3 is faster then 4.2.1 :> The same about X Server etc. It also shows default Kubuntu 9.04 setup is faster in those tests. It's rather difficult to measure real performance of operating systems and the results will probably always be subjective.

There probably will be no difference between Kubuntu, Ubuntu, Xubuntu and so on.

[Zhick]

This benchmark shows GCC 4.3.3 is faster then 4.2.1 :> The same about X Server etc. It also shows default Kubuntu 9.04 setup is faster in those tests. It's rather difficult to measure real performance of operating systems and the results will probably always be subjective.

I'd say the results would have more weight if the distributions own package-management would be used. Cause that's were the real differences are, and that's also what most users are gonna use in 99%.
Currently the pts is very much a compiler-benchmark, since it builds the tests itself with the systems gcc.

There probably will be no difference between Kubuntu, Ubuntu, Xubuntu and so on.

Well, KDE is probably slightly heavier on cpu-usage and Gnome is heavier on memory-usage, so there might be a slight difference. But I agree there's no point in such a comparison.

[fat_chris]

Would have been nice for just a review of PC-BSD-7.1. Looks like a nice FreeBSD variant but unfortunately doesn't work in virtualbox very well so I can't really test it. Do you guys do *BSD stuff too? Or is it just linux and solaris?

[kraftman]

Would have been nice for just a review of PC-BSD-7.1. Looks like a nice FreeBSD variant but unfortunately doesn't work in virtualbox very well so I can't really test it. Do you guys do *BSD stuff too? Or is it just linux and solaris?

It's probably more user friendly then FreeBSD and it's aimed at desktop users:

some easy to find reviews :

http://www.osnews.com/story/20351/Review_PC-BSD_7
http://www.dissurion.com/pc-bsd-review/

[fat_chris]

It's probably more user friendly then FreeBSD and it's aimed at desktop users:

some easy to find reviews :

http://www.osnews.com/story/20351/Review_PC-BSD_7
http://www.dissurion.com/pc-bsd-review/

I've used old versions before, but this new one is supposed to have some great improvements, that's why I asked.
PS: I read the OSNews review a while back, but that's now an old verison.

[npcomplete]

As kraftman said, you're really comparing the results of different compilers and not operating systems. Seriously, if phoronix insists on using this methodology, why not at least include results from using the SAME compiler?

[jeffro-tull]

when I saw this article show up in my feed list, I thought to myself, "wait a minute... Kubuntu? Does that mean the Phoronix Test Suite has some Qt/kdelibs benchmarks now? Sweet!"

Ah well....

[mattst88]

Keep in mind, however, PC-BSD/FreeBSD is using the older GCC 4.2 branch while Kubuntu 9.04 is using GCC 4.3.

Translation: this test is totally invalid.