Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Mac OS X 10.5.6 Benchmarks

[yotambien]

Actually Ubuntu isn't bleeding edge and those results have nothing to do with real life experience (except slow graphic performance). The point is those benchmarks don't show what runs better (except 2D and 3D). Don't read and you wouldn't cry

P.S. Do you consider proper kernel config and benchmarks used in proper way don't have influence on results?

Several things here.

Ubuntu certainly is a distribution that follows closely the newest software developments. Not only because every six months is taken from Debian sid, but more importantly because the Ubuntu team has a preference for the untested and experimental options. Call it what you like, the point doesn't change.

The benchmarks. Maybe they are not real life situations, as in they're not measuring the cpu load while watching a youtube video and opening this particular pdf file I've been sent today; however, they put numbers to pretty reproducible computing tasks that stress different parts of the system. So, I don't spend the day signing 4096-bit RSA keys, but I surely know I prefer my computer to do it faster rather than slower.

As for the 'proper' kernel config...next time you take a look at a car magazine and see a comparison between two cars, don't forget to complain because they didn't tweak the suspensions or added nitrous oxide to the engine.


PS. In any case, no, I don't think that the kernel configuration has a critical effect in anything regarding performance.

[oyvind]

embarrassing for us linux users...
we can't claim better usability
can't claim more compatibility
and now, not performance
just that it's open source, and stable/secure

Well, I'm sad to say that Linux has regressed quite a bit stability-wise as well, because of the graphics mess. So then there's secure and open source left.

Don't come here and laugh about Windows BSODs, Linux crashes just as much. When KMS becomes widely available, we can have our own "BSOD": the PSOD (Penguin Screen Of Death).

[kraftman]

Several things here.

Ubuntu certainly is a distribution that follows closely the newest software developments. Not only because every six months is taken from Debian sid, but more importantly because the Ubuntu team has a preference for the untested and experimental options. Call it what you like, the point doesn't change.

Some packages, drivers are experimental, but entire distribution isn't using the newest software. Kernel isn't the newest. Call it what you like, but reality doesn't change.

The benchmarks. Maybe they are not real life situations, as in they're not measuring the cpu load while watching a youtube video and opening this particular pdf file I've been sent today; however, they put numbers to pretty reproducible computing tasks that stress different parts of the system. So, I don't spend the day signing 4096-bit RSA keys, but I surely know I prefer my computer to doing it faster rather than slower.

The question is to do what is faster then slower?

As for the 'proper' kernel config...next time you take a look at a car magazine and see a comparison between two cars, don't forget to complain because they didn't tweak the suspensions or added nitrous oxide to the engine.

Do the same. One car is a jeep and second car is a passenger car. Don't forget to complain, because passenger car is adapted for different tasks then the jeep.

PS. In any case, no, I don't think that the kernel configuration has a critical effect in anything regarding performance.

It actually has. That's why there's server and desktop (however it has a different approach then Windows or OS X and when compared to them it's more server then desktop system) version of Ubuntu etc.

@joshuapurcell

if you start working on optimization (which has already been done on the Mac side) then you would get even better results than what is posted here. Nothing embarrassing about that.

There's no optimization needed for Linux to perform ways better in those tests (oh, maybe it's actually performing very well). Numbers are just not enough in this case to make clear judgment. An only area where Linux is loosing is graphics (and marketshare )

[Kano]

Well to be fair, no Mac user would ever run those things which are benchmarked here. It does not matter if it is faster or slower, the target Mac user does not run phoronix-test-suite. U 9.04 has well known intel gfx problems, so it is hard to win anything gfx related.

[kraftman]

Well to be fair, no Mac user would ever run those things which are benchmarked here. It does not matter if it is faster or slower, the target Mac user does not run phoronix-test-suite. U 9.04 has well known intel gfx problems, so it is hard to win anything gfx related.

Exactly, but such numbers are nice advertisement :>

It's often the case that desktop systems will cheat at writes while servers don't

Ubuntu desktop edition is in my opinion more server then desktop system (of course when compared to Windows and OS X) and maybe that's why it's 'loosing' in many tests here.

[yotambien]

Some packages, drivers are experimental, but entire distribution isn't using the newest software. Kernel isn't the newest. Call it what you like, but reality doesn't change.

Tell me which distributions, out of the main ones, update the whole stack every six months. And add to that the known preference of Ubuntu for new and flashy bits that break the system in many colourful ways.

The question is to do what is faster then slower?

I'm not sure I understand you here...but...yes?

Do the same. One car is a jeep and second car is a passenger car. Don't forget to complain, because passenger car is adapted for different tasks then the jeep.

I don't complain. The analogy doesn't hold. Two operative systems targeted at desktop users, one computer, one benchmark. What's wrong?

It actually has. That's why there's server and desktop (however it has a different approach then Windows or OS X and when compared to them it's more server then desktop system) version of Ubuntu etc.

You are playing here. You know perfectly well that they didn't benchmark Ubuntu server edition. And you know that the differences between the server and desktop versions lie more in the packages than in the kernel included. So, give me the numbers showing that changing the kernel configuration from the default one has a critical and positive impact on performance.

Well to be fair, no Mac user would ever run those things which are benchmarked here. It does not matter if it is faster or slower, the target Mac user does not run phoronix-test-suite.

Because of course, you know what Mac users run or not. The important point here is the difference between the benchmark applications used and what is actually being benchmarked. According to you, because Ubuntu user X doesn't play Tremulous, this benchmark doesn't mean anything to him/her.

U 9.04 has well known intel gfx problems, so it is hard to win anything gfx related.

Well, that's just too bad. Again, that it is a known fact doesn't change a thing.

Insert coin, please (in six months time).

[Odon]

A few observations:
1. I find it a bit odd that the x86_64 variant of Ubuntu had been left out from the benchmarks. The previous comparison (10.5.5 vs. 8.10) showed visible improvements in several non-GUI related tests

2. The set of tests is changing as the test suite is being developed. This makes it really difficult to make a comparison between the test rounds. It would be interesting to have a direct comparison between OS X 10.5.5 and 10.5.6 on the same hardware with the same set of benchmarks

3. I looked at the performance comparison between the Linux kernels so as to make some conclusions myself. What a surprise again another set of benchmarks

[thefirstm]

x86_64, please?

This would be a much more valid comparison. Most modern computers are 64-bit, and the popularity of 64-bit OSes is increasing. Very soon, MacOS as well will be able to do 64, so 64-bit would be a much better comparison in this case. Also, please lose the Intel gfx card. We all know that the Intel driver is undergoing a major restructuring right now. It would be a much more fair comparison to use an Nvidia graphics card, where Ubuntu would be able to perform much more strongly.

[deanjo]

Well to be fair, no Mac user would ever run those things which are benchmarked here. It does not matter if it is faster or slower, the target Mac user does not run phoronix-test-suite. U 9.04 has well known intel gfx problems, so it is hard to win anything gfx related.

I would have to disagree Kano. Content creation, sqlite performance, compression disk performance and somewhat lesser gaming are all key components in the average Mac user's desktop life. SQLite performance , compression, and disk performance are key systems that effect how well items such as Mail, Time Machine, Safari, Finder, Spotlight, iTunes, etc etc deliver the end user experience. Java does as well and always has been an archillies heal with OS X (thanks Sun). The only real tests that really do not apply to the average user are items such as compile time which is usually a one shot deal, compile once and forget about afterwards.

For all of you screaming "Use Nvidia or ATI and frglx" that actually kind of slaps the face of what linux is trying to achieve and as well Michael can't simply "slap in a ati or nvidia" card. It's a Mac Mini. It's a small form factor with IGP. So unless you want to donate cash to him so he can either afford a Mac with discreet graphics (or just one of the new ones with a nvidia chipset) your asking him to do the impossible. I might also add that out of the box Ubuntu does not have those blobs included. It would default to using the ati opensource or nvidia opensource drivers anyways.

This comparison is completely valid. Good, bad and ugly no matter what OS you like. I find it funny that love linux are basically saying that "it sucks without propriatary blobs".

As far as the "OS X is optimized for this machine" arguement goes, well here is some news for you. OS X 10.5 is compiled to the lowest capabilities of the first intel based machine that debuted in 2006 (lowest end intel proc is a Intel Core, not even a duo or Core 2). This means the kernel and supporting libraries was not compiled with all the advanced features that newer revisions of the intel chip came out with. Tweaking? Sure there is a lot of tweaking that could be done on OS X too from the base setup if the person wants to put the time and effor into it. OS X by default is running several processes such as Spotlight (OS X's indexing service) that slow the system down just for one example.

[drag]

Hrm.

I was never impressed with Ubuntu's technical prowless. They are good at providing a decent user experience, but otherwise they are lacking in lots of technical know-how.


I am much more interested in the results of Fedora 11 because that more accurately shows the state of the art. I am not expecting a huge performance difference between Ubuntu vs Fedora... it's just that Fedora is going to be in a better state of tune.