Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 107

Thread: A Big Operating System Benchmark Comparison

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto/North Bay Canada
    Posts
    877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    (Truth be told I don't really think it will be a big trouble to have a test of Arch as well along with Ubuntu. It worths the time if we want the benchmarks to be fair).
    Just because you use arch doesnt make it an ideal testing platform. I use linux mint but you dont see me asking for that to be tested, i can already assure you its bloated. If the man had the time i would say go for it but he and hopefully others here have lives to attend .

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    I guess that would mean ~70% of linux users are retarded then as that's still about the percentage of linux users using 32-bit. One of the strengths of linux is NOT having to buy new hardware to keep current with the OS. Linux is just as much as running on legacy systems as it is running on current hardware.
    yes but you miss an point
    '
    Benchmarking is only for new hartware becourse you canot "not" buy your old hartware becourse of bad benchmark results!

    you only can handel your buy in hartware befor you buy it and read benchmarkes as a shopping guid!

    32bit linux is vor old hartware only!

    so to make a big benchmark on 32 bit is useless!

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Waiting on someone to send me some new Apple hardware then...
    you also can use hackintosh ... .

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kiwi_kid_aka_bod View Post
    Well, benchmark shoot-outs alone are (no offence to your previous hard work) getting a little dull and repetitive. Of more interest is probably the question: How well do the differing OS's take advantage of the hardware available?

    The key questions for me would be:
    1. How does the jump in performance of OS A on a hard drive vs. an SSD compare to the jump for OS's B, C, D, etc. for the same?
      Recommended settings from the provider (i.e. noatime) would be applied
      This would make sense in the disk tests.
    2. How does the jump in performance of OS A on 32 vs. 64 bit and single vs. dual vs. quad core compare to the jump for OS's B, C, D, etc. for the same?
      Noting disadvantages such as no flash, broken/unavailable gfx drivers, etc.
      This would make sense in CPU and multi-threading heavy tests.
    3. How well does OS A work with Intel/AMD/NVidia compared to OS's B, C, D, etc where appropriate?
      A server board with Intel could be used, then add-in AMD/NVidia cards.
      Possibly open-source and proprietary drivers could be assesed.
      This would make sense in graphics heavy tests.


    As to actual OS's pick one from each:
    1. Linux Desktop/User friendly (probably Ubuntu Desktop)
    2. Linux Server/Hardcore (Ubuntu Server, RHES, Arch, i.e. lean)
    3. Mac OS X
    4. Solaris or OpenSolaris (any significant difference?)
    5. Net/Free/PC-BSD (perhaps more than one of them)
    6. <dream-mode>Windows 7</dream-mode>
    7. Possible others?...

    I would suggest that only the latest available supported releases are eligible. No alphas, betas or rc's.

    In the end this all might be a touch futile. Even if there were better figures in one of the others, personally I'd be unlikely to switch OS based on benchmarks. As an end-user it's more about the utility, comfort and previous experience of an OS than about a bit of performance here and there.

    As a developer (or in my case, a geek) it is interesting to highlight and spot patterns of deficiencies in comparison to peers.
    32bit vs 64bit is pointless the last phoronix test macox vs linux shows linux lost all benchmarks on 32bit becourse sse3 used by macos and i386 linux do not use sse1

    only 64bit linux has a chance becourse of sse2 against the sse3 in macOS!!!! !

    benchmark on an harddrive is Poinitless only a fast SSD will be better!

    there is no need to test an lame duck like mechanikharddrives!

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    Sources missing.
    the last phoronix test macos vs ubuntu,.. 32bit ubuntu lose nerly every test lose nerly ALL test.

    but the 64bit ubuntu wins most of the tests!

    and there only 1-2 test that say 32 bit is faster over 13 test say 64bit is faster!

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Could we get the latest Arch linux? Since its a nice clean linux it would show how current linux development is doing compared to other OSs.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,613

    Default

    32 bit is faster when the code has been hand optimized with asm. But usually the speed difference is not that important. More import is that you can playback fullscreen flash videos with opengl accelleration with nvidia or fglrx binary driver and on 64 bit you can not. On 64 bit that does not look good at all, only when you dl h264 flash movies and play em with mplayer using xv/vdpau (or opengl for fglrx).

  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    yes but you miss an point
    '
    Benchmarking is only for new hartware becourse you canot "not" buy your old hartware becourse of bad benchmark results!

    you only can handel your buy in hartware befor you buy it and read benchmarkes as a shopping guid!

    32bit linux is vor old hartware only!

    so to make a big benchmark on 32 bit is useless!
    No, you completely miss the point. 32-bit machines are out there in mass. Ranging from personal use, computer labs, servers, corporate workstations, etc and many of those places update machines when they absolutely need too. In such environments it is not uncommon to see those machines go even 7 years before replacement. Intel made 32-bit only mainstream cores well into 2007. The tests would be totally relevant.

    Of course your SSE2 argument doesn't hold crap either as most of PTS is compiled from scratch and the compilers pick up on the capabilities of the chip meaning if the CPU supports SSE2 it will be compiled with such support. It's called runtime detection. Also SSE2 will mean diddley shit squat to a lot of the benchmarks as many don't even use SSE2 and are not coded to utilize it either.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    you also can use hackintosh ... .
    That would be illegal and put Micheal in the range of Apple's Ninja lawyers.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    Yup, also the new OSX will be pure 64 bit as they say.
    Well yes and no. OS X when ran on a 64-bit system will be pure 64. If ran on one of the early intel Macs that only had a 32-bit intel it will still run as 32-bit.

Posting Permissions

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