Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 105

Thread: What Shall We Benchmark Next? Let Us Know!

  1. #31

    Default

    Please keep the one-time bench requests to a separate thread, this one is in regards to Phoromatic Tracker and on-going performance measurements.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18

    Talking SysBench and Stream

    SysBench over Percona XtraDB (MySQL fork) vs Postgres:
    http://sysbench.sourceforge.net/
    http://www.percona.com/percona-lab.html

    Or even MariaDB:
    http://askmonty.org/wiki/MariaDB

    Stream: memory bandwith
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/

  3. #33

    Default

    Stream is already in the Phoronix Test Suite...

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,061

    Default

    Adding my vote for tracking Wine and the graphics stack (both Mesa and 2d).

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    45

    Default

    I want to see more OSX vs Linux tests.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Why not actually concentrate on giving us news instead of the eternal same and uninformative benchmarks? I mean, ok, you want to promote your own Phoronix Test Suite, but all these benchmarks are really annoying and it doesn't give the user much information at the end of the day. Throwing at our face all these graphs and figures about every little alpha and beta seems to be an easy way to deal with information, but certainly not a qualitative one. Such a pity to use it the wrong way. Phoronix used to be a very good website to be up to date with Unix/linux news, but now it's all about those same always benchmarks.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    /dev/random
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mez' View Post
    Why not actually concentrate on giving us news instead of the eternal same and uninformative benchmarks? I mean, ok, you want to promote your own Phoronix Test Suite, but all these benchmarks are really annoying and it doesn't give the user much information at the end of the day. Throwing at our face all these graphs and figures about every little alpha and beta seems to be an easy way to deal with information, but certainly not a qualitative one. Such a pity to use it the wrong way. Phoronix used to be a very good website to be up to date with Unix/linux news, but now it's all about those same always benchmarks.
    Phoronix is a hardware-review/benchmarking site.

    Go to the front page and read the title.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2

    Default

    A regular OpenGL benchmark on windows(!), linux and freebsd for both nvidia and ati would be nice.

    But: Please consider to add some variance based metrics to the benchmarks (e.g. confidence intervals which are easy to understand). Currently you don't provide any answer whether your performance findings are significant.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    99

    Default Latency

    Quote Originally Posted by sifnt View Post
    While I don't know the specific benchmarks to use, anything that measures latency / responsiveness would be awesome.

    Linux still doesn't feel quite right under some workloads, so anything that helps devs get to the bottom of the responsiveness issues is a good thing.

    Thanks for making such a great platform, its growing continually more impressive fast
    cyclictest, interbench, and framerate jitter measurements. cyclictest measures scheduler latency, interbench is supposed to measure interactive latency, and better framerate stats will show actual game playability/video watchability a lot better than just the average framerate.

    Specifically, for meaningful latency results, cyclictest reports should show min, avg, max, and stddev. Games should have their framerate checked multiple times per second (or ideally just measure the interval between every call to glSwap()), with min, avg, max, and stddev frame times (single frame time is 1/fps, so instantaneous fps is 1/frame time).

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unix_epoch View Post
    cyclictest, interbench, and framerate jitter measurements. cyclictest measures scheduler latency, interbench is supposed to measure interactive latency, and better framerate stats will show actual game playability/video watchability a lot better than just the average framerate.

    Specifically, for meaningful latency results, cyclictest reports should show min, avg, max, and stddev. Games should have their framerate checked multiple times per second (or ideally just measure the interval between every call to glSwap()), with min, avg, max, and stddev frame times (single frame time is 1/fps, so instantaneous fps is 1/frame time).

    Even though nobody in the mainstream talks about latency benchmarks, latency is the most important factor in how people feel when they're using a UI. If it is responsive (i.e. low average latency, low jitter, low max latency), they'll enjoy using it more both consciously and subconsciously.

    And we're really not getting 1 minute to edit posts...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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