Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: This Week: Benchmarking, Benchmarking, & IGDNG

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,427

    Default This Week: Benchmarking, Benchmarking, & IGDNG

    Phoronix: This Week: Benchmarking, Benchmarking, & IGDNG

    This week at Phoronix we published two articles that had benchmarks that generated quite a bit of interest and feedback: The Cost of SELinux, Audit, and Kernel Debugging and Arch Linux 2009.8 Benchmarks. The test results in these two articles were, of course, powered by the Phoronix Test Suite, for which we had additional news about this week...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzQ2MA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    its a shame to test like michael"phoronix"


    ok its simpel intel is bad becourse the cloused source driver on macos and windows is much much much faster than the opensource one!
    there is no need for testing hartware if the resuld be cleare bevor the
    testing!
    only nvidia and amd have a solution to have the same driver base to windows,macos and linux.
    and macos.... is SSE3 compilet 32bit ubuntu only 486/686 compilet
    macos is sse3 and 64bit ubuntu is only sse2...
    macos has diverend compiler to macos use the intel compiler much much much faster than the GCC compiler!
    if you make a real benchmark of the OS and not the compiler ...
    you need to recompile a ubuntu linux completly on intelcompiler with SSE3 only support.-
    then no "intel" VGA-- the result will be clear...
    linux win every test and macos lose everytest.

    but if you test like michael"phoronix" test in the past...

    intelcompiler(macos) VS GCC (linux)

    32bit-SS3 (macos) vs 486 (linux)

    32bit-sse3 (macos) vs 64bit-sse2 (linux)

    clousedsource intel driver(macos) vs opensource linux driver (linux)...

    all overall.. its a shame to test like this!

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium
    only nvidia and amd have a solution to have the same driver base to windows,macos and linux.
    So read this part again:

    Quote Originally Posted by vermaden
    Many people scream to use ATI or nVidia cards, but AMD does not provide their drivers to NetBSD and FreeBSD, nVdidia only provides i386 driver for FreeBSD, but there is no amd64 version, and no version for NetBSD either.
    There WILL be diffrences in drivers and so, but ALL tested systems have ACCELRATED 2D/3D drivers for Intel cards.

    AMD does not offer ANY drivers for FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenSolaris.

    nVidia only offers limited i386 driver for FreeBSD and NOTHING for NetBSD.

    The other way to be EQUAL for all systems will be using some old graphics card/untypical card where ALL systems will be forced to use 2D VESA driver to accomplish same slowdown everywhere ...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,757

    Default

    I wonder actually if the old cards would even be faster with vesa than modern ones. New cards might be designed for a bit different purposes.

  5. #5

    Default

    @nanonyme

    Not the point mate, if we cant provide similar grapchics accelration for all systems, then turn it off for all systems, so benchmarks will be fair, but IMHO Intel sollution is far better (and all tested systems support it).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vermaden View Post
    So read this part again:

    There WILL be diffrences in drivers and so, but ALL tested systems have ACCELRATED 2D/3D drivers for Intel cards.
    AMD does not offer ANY drivers for FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenSolaris.
    nVidia only offers limited i386 driver for FreeBSD and NOTHING for NetBSD.
    The other way to be EQUAL for all systems will be using some old graphics card/untypical card where ALL systems will be forced to use 2D VESA driver to accomplish same slowdown everywhere ...
    marketshare:windows 92% macos 7% linux 1% freebsd 0% netbsd 0% opensolaris 0%

    to test on intel systems only for 0% of the market share is useless.


    why hurt linux by making the benchmark test exakly in a way that linux only can lose only becourse FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenSolaris also will play with ? ? ?

    edit:82% is wrong 92% is right.
    Last edited by Qaridarium; 08-17-2009 at 11:20 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    marketshare:windows 82% macos 7% linux 1% freebsd 0% netbsd 0% opensolaris 0%
    I believe that is supposed to be 92% Windows.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    marketshare:windows 82% macos 7% linux 1% freebsd 0% netbsd 0% opensolaris 0%

    to test on intel systems only for 0% of the market share is useless.


    why hurt linux by making the benchmark test exakly in a way that linux only can lose only becourse FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenSolaris also will play with ? ? ?
    LOL?

    So why bother benchmarking at all if you want to discriminate other systems at start :ASD


    Intel owns MOST current graphics card market so this is the most popullar hardware btw.

    Other thing that you would not say that a year ago when Linux also was 0% market share ...

    Also Linux has THE SAME CHANCES as other systems on Intel hardware, its still THE SAME HARDWARE you know?
    Last edited by vermaden; 08-17-2009 at 09:49 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    marketshare:windows 82% macos 7% linux 1% freebsd 0% netbsd 0% opensolaris 0%
    I suspect this covers mainly desktop systems. Statistics for server-only systems might show quite a bit smaller percentage for Windows. (though still a significant one) But yeah, as said before, where's the missing 10%? :3 Is there an invisible operating system getting market share!?!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    I suspect this covers mainly desktop systems. Statistics for server-only systems might show quite a bit smaller percentage for Windows. (though still a significant one) But yeah, as said before, where's the missing 10%? :3 Is there an invisible operating system getting market share!?!
    Pirated windows :P That should really have larger market share but still

Posting Permissions

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