Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53

Thread: Workstation Benchmarks: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Linux

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,100

    Default Workstation Benchmarks: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Linux

    Phoronix: Workstation Benchmarks: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Linux

    As I alluded to recently, the second round of Windows 7 vs. Linux benchmarks -- with the first round consisting of Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04 and Mac OS X vs. Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu benchmarks -- are currently being done atop a Lenovo ThinkPad W510 notebook that is quite popular with business professionals. With the high-end ThinkPad W510 boasting a dual quad-core Intel Core i7 CPU with Hyper-Threading plus a NVIDIA Quadro FX 880M graphics processor, we began this second round of cross-platform benchmarks by running a set of workstation tests. In this article we are mainly looking at the workstation graphics (via SPECViewPerf) performance along with some CPU/disk tests.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15171

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,798

    Default

    The disk IO bench is the most interesting one. It's the perfect example of why having more throughput is not better; Linux does it faster, but the whole system locks up while doing IO. Windows is slower, but the system stays fluid while the operation is executing.

    No benchmark ever done by Phoronix shows that.

  3. #3

    Thumbs down Unfair benchmark

    Hi.

    I just registered to say that the article is dead wrong. IOzone needs Cygwin under Windows (it uses mmap() and pthreads), which is an emulation layer. Benchmarks should never be done with emulation of any sort.

    Try running a file system benchmarking software that's native to Windows. Use Wine under Linux and see what happens...

    Cheers,
    Bogdan

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Why always Ubuntu? It'd be nice to see real Enterprise Linux compared to Win 7 results. Red Hat EL and Novell EL.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Good article. Possible emulation issues aside affecting performance, I'm not surprised both operating systems were so very close in performance. MS has done a nice job (better job?) engineering this release of their OS. Though I'm mainly a Linux guy, I can say "Good JERB MS!". I've even gone as far as dual booting Win 7. My first MS OS since Win2k.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Love4Boobies View Post
    Hi.

    I just registered to say that the article is dead wrong. IOzone needs Cygwin under Windows (it uses mmap() and pthreads), which is an emulation layer. Benchmarks should never be done with emulation of any sort.

    Try running a file system benchmarking software that's native to Windows. Use Wine under Linux and see what happens...

    Cheers,
    Bogdan
    Cygwin isn't an emulator though, it's a compatibility layer.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    The disk IO bench is the most interesting one. It's the perfect example of why having more throughput is not better; Linux does it faster, but the whole system locks up while doing IO. Windows is slower, but the system stays fluid while the operation is executing.

    No benchmark ever done by Phoronix shows that.
    I think you're wrong. Here's the issue probably and finally, it seems to be fixed soon:

    http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/1/40

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    The disk IO bench is the most interesting one. It's the perfect example of why having more throughput is not better; Linux does it faster, but the whole system locks up while doing IO. Windows is slower, but the system stays fluid while the operation is executing.

    No benchmark ever done by Phoronix shows that.
    then you must be doing something wrong

    for me it's somewhat the opposite:

    I can work with Windows 7 most of the time but during heavy copying - and especially during antivirus scanning (set to high priority), indexing of files with copernic desktop, google desktop, etc. you simply can't work with it - the delays take MINUTES
    - this really shouldn't affect productivity

    compare that to my Gentoo system with 2.6.34 or 2.6.35:
    even during heaviest transfers, compiling, etc. it's still responsible and I'm NOT using BFS or BFQ - only stock CFS and CFQ - it's not even locking up when doing a desktop search indexing, copying my roughly 800 GB /home partition to another disk (both encrypted), hearing webradio, surfing, etc. etc.
    - the only problem also taking MINUTES to react is when it's swapping out memory but that's a problem due to heavy swapping when I use all of my memory (not the typical case)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC
    The disk IO bench is the most interesting one. It's the perfect example of why having more throughput is not better; Linux does it faster, but the whole system locks up while doing IO. Windows is slower, but the system stays fluid while the operation is executing.
    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman
    I think you're wrong. Here's the issue probably and finally, it seems to be fixed soon:

    http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/1/40
    Both interesting observations. I can't speak much for the situation in Windows since I only use it to play one game (XP). The few times I touch a Vista laptop from some friend I find it lagging with lots of disk I/O. What I can tell for sure is that Linux doesn't behave ideally either. Be it Firefox touching its database or some other program doing something, the whole system is not responsive for as long as the read/writes last. It would be excellent if that commit fixed this issue.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yotambien View Post
    Both interesting observations. I can't speak much for the situation in Windows since I only use it to play one game (XP). The few times I touch a Vista laptop from some friend I find it lagging with lots of disk I/O. What I can tell for sure is that Linux doesn't behave ideally either. Be it Firefox touching its database or some other program doing something, the whole system is not responsive for as long as the read/writes last. It would be excellent if that commit fixed this issue.
    There's definitely some problem in both. In 32bit XP when system was doing something in the background (antivir or some other activity, maybe refreshing Add/remove programs) it become unresponsive. There's similar behavior, but in 64bit Linux when copying large files. Me and my friend didn't notice this is 32bit Linux and afaik he didn't notice this in his Windows. I hope it will be fixed this time, because it can be very irritating.

Posting Permissions

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