Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 56

Thread: Ubuntu 64-bit More Competitive Against Mac OS X

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,673

    Default Ubuntu 64-bit More Competitive Against Mac OS X

    Phoronix: Ubuntu 64-bit More Competitive Against Mac OS X

    Last week we published Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Mac OS X 10.5.6 benchmarks where we compared the performance of these two popular operating systems on a Mac Mini. With the OS X kernel currently being 32-bit but with support for 64-bit applications, we had used the 32-bit version of Ubuntu 9.04. In a majority of the Leopard operating system from Apple outperformed Canonical's Jaunty Jackalope, but today we are adding in the results from an Ubuntu 64-bit installation. As you can see from the results, the x86_64 version of Ubuntu Linux is more competitive against Mac OS X 10.5.6.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13838

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Thanks good article! Really intressting...most ppl say there is no use in 64bit OS, only that it can use more RAM. Atleast I can point at something when I say it does perform better.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by conholster View Post
    Thanks good article! Really intressting...most ppl say there is no use in 64bit OS, only that it can use more RAM. Atleast I can point at something when I say it does perform better.
    The major difference (which these benchs show) is the use of SSE by default in x86_64, which is way faster than x87 floating point unit.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rip-Rip View Post
    The major difference (which these benchs show) is the use of SSE by default in x86_64, which is way faster than x87 floating point unit.
    Actually, 64-bit code even uses SSE2 as all x86_64 CPUs are SSE2 capable. To test your theory, one could compare a source based distro (eg. Gentoo) which was compiled with such optimization against a non-optimized distro.

    That being said, encryption and video encoding tests also benefit from the additional x86_64 registers, so I expect that 32 bit code will still perform worse.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by conholster View Post
    Thanks good article! Really intressting...most ppl say there is no use in 64bit OS, only that it can use more RAM. Atleast I can point at something when I say it does perform better.
    I've always said: there's not use in a 32bit OS. Double the registers. Baseline cpus allow for greater default optimization. What's wrong with living in the 21st century?

  6. #6

    Default

    Thanks VERY much for next Ext3 benchmark... Who's interested in Ext4?

    About this 'regression' fixed in 2.6.29. Regression is probably in GCC or in some library (maybe this also explains why *BSD and Open Solaris aren't performance monsters in PB) and there's only workaround in 2.6.29. If there was regression in Linux kernel many people will complain about it and Linux devs test kernel themselves. If there's even only 2% performance drop they take care of this.
    Last edited by kraftman; 05-18-2009 at 06:04 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Thanks VERY much for next Ext3 benchmark... Who's interested in Ext4?
    ext4 would be very interesting indeed but the current test should take place with ext3 as long as it begun with ext3. If Michael had used ext4 for 64 bit then we couldn't make a comparison between 32 and 64 since we would have two different factors (the bits and the filesystem).

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    ext4 would be very interesting indeed but the current test should take place with ext3 as long as it begun with ext3. If Michael had used ext4 for 64 bit then we couldn't make a comparison between 32 and 64 since we would have two different factors (the bits and the filesystem).
    Yes, I just thought we'll get Ext 4 as a bonus .

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Yes, I just thought we'll get Ext 4 as a bonus .
    Hehehe, I'm sure we'll see ext4 benchmarks when Fedora 11 is out.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Lies, damned lies, and the statistics:

    Seven of the 29 tests changed their winner/loser status for Ubuntu by switching from 32 to 64-bit. Six tests became winners for Ubuntu 64 and 1 became a loser.

    Overall,
    12 wins for Mac OS X,
    4 wins for Ubuntu 32, and
    13 wins for Ubuntu 64.

    Ubuntu 64 wins.


    I think if the graphics and SQLite performance were fixed then there really wouldn't be much of a performance gap for most desktop users to care about.

Posting Permissions

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