Is Arch Linux Really Faster Than Ubuntu?

[waucka]

For those of you not aware of the Compiz hit, sure, tomorrow or Friday I'll post some benchmarks showing its cost with ATI/NVIDIA/Intel hardware and the different drivers.

I find it rather suspicious that the numbers for Ubuntu in this test are very close to 60 FPS. In your testing, you should probably make sure that you are not comparing vsync to non-vsync.

[yoshi314]

archlinux is faster because it works faster as a desktop. especially on older hardware, like the pc i have at work. it's a sluggish p4 celeron. i tried ubuntu, but it was horrible. arch has been running there for 3 years now and i have no complaints.

personally, i don't care about compiz and games. arch package manager is faster, system updates are easier. i don't have unnecessary services running and the system itself can be kept small with no real effort.

getting a usable desktop that includes mp3/mpeg4 capable media player is also easy on arch.

[pingufunkybeat]

KWin disables compositing automatically for full-screen 3d applications.

I guess that this is an issue of Compiz being combined with Metacity by Ubuntu instead of using a window manager that can turn compositing on and off.

[ethana2]

I'm the team contact of Ubuntu Nebraska. I'm very biased. ..but not towards Arch. In fact, I view the marginalization of non-Ubuntu desktops as a requisite to the eventual extermination of Windows.

..but that we love a piece of software does not mean we should overlook its faults. We need to fix them.

[monraaf]

I'm the team contact of Ubuntu Nebraska. I'm very biased. ..but not towards Arch. In fact, I view the marginalization of non-Ubuntu desktops as a requisite to the eventual extermination of Windows.

So you want to replace the Windows monoculture with an Ubuntu one. Thanks, but no thanks. Besides I don' think that would be sustainable. The Linux ecosystem relies heavily on the contributions from companies such as Red Hat. Not so much Canonical unfortunately.

[DanL]

archlinux is faster because it works faster as a desktop. especially on older hardware, like the pc i have at work. it's a sluggish p4 celeron. i tried ubuntu, but it was horrible. arch has been running there for 3 years now and i have no complaints.

Agreed on Arch being faster on my older system, but remember that 32-bit Arch Linux is i686-optimized, while 32-bit Ubuntu has not been up to this point (that's about to change). Note that the article uses 64-bit installs.

[FreeBooteR69]

I'ved used both Ubuntu and currently Arch and found Arch to much more responsive. With Arch you get the system you want. With Ubuntu you get the system they want for you.

The rolling release model and Arch's pacman package manager and ABS build system has been a dream to use.

Also for those who hate where Ubuntu is going (mono), you don't have to remove it after installation because you didn't install it in the first place.

The arguement from the supporters of Ubuntu is that if you don't like something you can always uninstall it. My arguement is that if you install Ubuntu, you are a supporter of mono, even if you hate it. By making Ubuntu popular, you are making mono popular because nobody will know that you removed mono and packages that are dependant on it.

If you load every software package Ubuntu uses into Arch, you won't see a massive improvement over Ubuntu because you are now laden with all the crap Ubuntu uses.

Arch is for me. Your mileage will vary.

[Alejandro Nova]

Can you compare the Compiz hit with KWin composited hit? From my experience... KWin may be slower with its effects, but it's faster than Compiz running games, because it manages to fully disable composition when running fullscreen.

This is my experience. Can you run a Compiz-windowed, Compiz-fullscreen, Metacity-windowed, Metacity-fullscreen, KWin-windowed and KWin-fullscreen comparison? That could be really enlightening.

[kbios]

KWin disables compositing automatically for full-screen 3d applications.

I guess that this is an issue of Compiz being combined with Metacity by Ubuntu instead of using a window manager that can turn compositing on and off.

Sorry, can you post evidence of that? Just tried Unigine Heaven under kde 4.4.3:
With effects manually deactivated reported FPS is more than 40 and the animation is smooth.
If I start it (fullscreen of course) with effects activated I get around 30 fps, but the animation is not smooth at all, as if it was doing 20 fps at most.

[BlackStar]

Blah blah, the same old drivel: "it feels faster to me", "yeah, the benchmarks aren't valid because I don't do that", "Ubuntu sucks because Compiz works as it should (wait what?)"

The cold, hard numbers show Ubuntu performing identically to Arch. Previous benchmarks show it performing on par with Gentoo. Get over it.

Btw, Compiz offers an option to disable itself for fullscreen applications. Older Ubuntu version enabled that by default. New ones don't. And guess what? Keeping Compiz enabled results in a *much* smoother experience when you alt-tab or when the system shows a notification (new mail, volume change, network change). That's why Compiz disables this option by default (install it on Arch to see what I mean).

Your system can't handle the extra load? Install ccsm and enable "unredirect fullscreen windows" or disable Compiz completely. Don't bash Ubuntu for your own freaking ignorance.

Arch rocks, by the way.