Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Ubuntu Intel Performance Still In Bad Shape

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    196

    Default

    Regardless, every kernel version since 2.6.28 has seen improvements in GEM's speed, and this will speed up UXA. As far as OpenGL goes, let's hold off until the end of the year when Gallium3D is more mainstream.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,267

    Default

    Yeah, Phoronix usually goes a bit overboard with pimping its test suite, but given its business model, I can usually ignore the shameless self-promotion. However, I do agree that this article is fairly useless.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbrown96 View Post
    I've come to expect shoddy reporting on this site...
    Well we come here anyway, don't we?! :-)

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    52

    Default

    I think KMS is the key here, Ubuntu needs to enable that. Let's see some new benchmarks then.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    86

    Default

    I'm a bit disappointed with Phoronix here, too. I've experienced a near 6x improvement in 3D gaming performance on my G43, but this article only has one basic 3D test among a bunch of 2D ones. They also only tested one Intel IGP. Had they tested more chipsets and done more 3D tests, maybe there could have been some insight (i.e. if Intel is focusing more on 3D and newer chipsets at the expense of 2D performance on older chips). With such a narrow view, I'm not really surprised Canonical didn't pay much attention to Phoronix's warnings of performance regressions.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ernstp View Post
    Well we come here anyway, don't we?! :-)
    He wrote, that he did not dislike all articles, did he?

    Same story for me, I skim the articles because sometimes there is something good to be found here.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    37

    Exclamation

    I agree with most points jbrown96 mentioned. And I also agree with what chaos386 said: One IGP doesn't tell anything about the very different and widespread GM965/GM45 counterparts.

    Furthermore I'd like to give you an example of how to collapse your benchmark diagrams in the future:
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2795&p=4

    How come that the Phoronix Testsuite now features 100+ Tests, but you happen to post the most irrelevant ones? How exactly is a KDE user or even Gnome Firefox user affected by GTK rendering performance? Please give me an example of an application that is bottlenecked by GtkRadioButton rendering performance?

    I serioulsy encourage to review the published benchmarks in terms of practical relevance. If you lack discussions of driver internals, there's not much point in posting lowlevel benchmarks and I suggest skipping that. This extends to the meaningless test of RamSpeed in different kernel versions.

    To say something positive: I enjoyed the 32 vs. 64 Bit Linux articles once.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    62

    Default

    JBrown, what would like the article authors to write between the graphs? There's no great wisdom in those brief sentences, but there isn't any wild speculation about the cause of any discrepancies either. I'm thankful that my time isn't wasted by reading pages of bullcrap.

    The selection of tests causes much more concern for me. Rarely is an article posted where I'm not left wondering how a few other things perform.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    116

    Default

    I think KMS is the key here, Ubuntu needs to enable that. Let's see some new benchmarks then.
    KMS is easily enabled in karmic now, there's absolutely no performance difference between UMS and KMS in UXA for me though.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    99

    Default

    jbrown96, it would be more suitable for someone like you to switch to decaf. In the conclusion of your argument, I gathered that you can count pretty high without the aid of your hands and feet. Complaining about his verbose word choice or his graph descriptions isn't helping.

    Michael is making it painfully obvious that the performance regression on intel REALLY SUCKS. The more press this issue gets, possibly the more faster it will be resolved.

    Dicks like you are regressive to this fast nature of spreading word, stop posting long meaningless articles that are longer than your victim's.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •