Quote Originally Posted by hartz View Post
One of my main gripes is that even though subject X might gain more from performance tuning than subject Z, subject Z might be favored by the environment and performance/benchmarks articles are all too often used as a decision maker.

Example:
  • Candidates: XFCE and Gnome
  • Test Environment: Old Computer
  • (Add performance test results in here)
  • Conclusion: XFCE is faster, thus better than Gnome.
I don't know if I understand this, but this is wrong! For example;
You test KDE4 and XFCE on a Pentium 2 400mHz, 4MB RAM and an ATI 9200.
Conclusion: XFCE outperforms KDE4 because it requires less instructions to be executed, leaving room for a lot of other things.

Now let's re-run the test on a Core i7, 4GB RAM and an ATI 2400.
Conclusion: multiple cores so room enough left for other processes and due to KDE4's heavy cashing and whatnot it responds way faster than XFCE with a lot of things.