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)
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.
Originally Posted by energyman
back then pulseaudio didn't even exist. And I will never use a sounddaemon. I hate them so much.
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.
Originally Posted by energyman
look at the date. 2006. Was anybody using tracker or beagle back then? did pulseaudio even exist?
Last edited by Apopas; 08-02-2009 at 03:27 PM.
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.
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.