Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49

Thread: Why does Phoronix use Ubuntu for Benchmarking ?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,731

    Default

    except that the DE has an influence. I tried it a few years ago. Everything based qt (kde, integrity) was a little bit faster than everything based gtk (gnome, xfce)

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    except that the DE has an influence. I tried it a few years ago. Everything based qt (kde, integrity) was a little bit faster than everything based gtk (gnome, xfce)
    But that's a personal opinion, you can't present results based on this, personally I've experienced quite the opposite, so I use Gnome in my desktop machine and XFCE for laptops

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,731

    Default

    I don't have the numbers anymore, but:
    glxgears was faster
    ut2003 was faster
    vegastrike was faster

    with kde or integrity.

    Not much, we are talking 2-3fps. But that in all situations.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    I don't have the numbers anymore, but:
    glxgears was faster
    ut2003 was faster
    vegastrike was faster

    with kde or integrity.

    Not much, we are talking 2-3fps. But that in all situations.
    Maybe something in your Gnome installation was using CPU. Pulseaudio for example. For me both KDE and Gnome are the sdame in speed but Gnome uses lower RAM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,731

    Default

    back then pulseaudio didn't even exist. And I will never use a sounddaemon. I hate them so much.

    about memory:
    http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/de...benchmark.html

    I really don't think that gnome has changed for the better - because a complete rewrite would be necessary.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    back then pulseaudio didn't even exist. And I will never use a sounddaemon. I hate them so much.

    about memory:
    http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/de...benchmark.html

    I really don't think that gnome has changed for the better - because a complete rewrite would be necessary.
    All these tests are very subjective. the plain desktop means nothing. For example was nautilus compiled with tracker or beagle support? Did gnome-panel used eds etc. Under my gentoo I can for example build a Gnome system which can use 40% lesser RAM or 80% more than the current one I use. The same for KDE. The matter is for the things I need my system to support, Gnome is a bit lighter. But as I said before that's just a personal experience and should stay like that when I have to present tests in the public. The DE should be relevant just when we benchmark desktop environments. When we run a general benchmark in Ubuntu and Mandriva, the matter is the performance with its default enviroments and not when we change Gnome to KDE in Ubuntu and KDE to Gnome in Mandriva.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,731

    Default

    look at the date. 2006. Was anybody using tracker or beagle back then? did pulseaudio even exist?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    look at the date. 2006. Was anybody using tracker or beagle back then? did pulseaudio even exist?
    I mentioned some examples, I'm bored to check what options had Gnome and KDE back then. There are thousands of things in Linux that can make your desktop environments fly or crawl, from the compiler's flags to support of bluetooth and multimedia. In general you can make even XFCE to perform "heavier" than Vista (well, overexaggeration ofcourse, but you get the picture )
    Come on, you're a gentoo user, you know that very well
    Last edited by Apopas; 08-02-2009 at 04:27 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Phoronix probably uses Ubuntu for hardware benchmarking for a very good reason - they had to choose one. If they started to choose more, Phoronix might lose focus.

    I am happy as I hope they will also stick with it. That way one can make comparisons over time. No, I have never run Ubuntu myself.

    And, if they compare an alpha version with a stable? Well, as long as it is clearly stated in the article, I see no bad in that.

    .

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Many servers run at runlevel 3 so the desktop does not even matter. I want to see benchmarks of server performance: nfs, openldap, postgresql, samba.

    I want benchmarks with tweaked configurations. Anyone who cares about performance is going to tweak, so benchmarks with default parameters are not very interesting.

    I would like to see benchmarks for routing. I want to use el-cheapo hardware for routing and I want to know which is the best kernel to use. I want to see IPv4 performance versus IPv6 performance.

    I want to see benchmarks for network cards. I want to know which cards will slurp up a saturated gigabit network without dropping packets.

    I would like to see benchmarks for virtualization products. Centos 5 in VMware versus Centos 5 in qemu, for example.

    I want to see benchmarks for supported products. I don't care about gentoo or opensolaris or opensuse because they do not have professional support. In my business the only two distributions that matter are RedHat and SuSE. This is not my choice but it is reality.

    The desktop is more than fast enough for me already. I don't care if a text box draws 1.4% faster on one distribution than another.

Posting Permissions

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