Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: First Look: FreeBSD 9.0 On Intel Sandy Bridge

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,529

    Default First Look: FreeBSD 9.0 On Intel Sandy Bridge

    Phoronix: First Look: FreeBSD 9.0 On Intel Sandy Bridge

    When recently having a ZaReason notebook in the office for Linux testing, the release candidate of PC-BSD/FreeBSD 9.0 was tested on this Intel Core i7 "Sandy Bridge" notebook and its performance compared to Ubuntu 11.10.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16707

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Please add a little conclusion at the end of your articles, like "x wins for Ubuntu, y for FreeBSD and z equality, so ... <a little analysis>" . I don't want to read every benchmark in each article.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Out of general curiosity, could this be repeated with the same compiler on both? On freebsd, gcc4.6 is in ports (lang/gcc46), and then it should just be a case of setting CC/CXX .

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Still comparing apples to oranges.
    True, this time Linux won (unlike the previous Linux vs. FreeBSD benchmark), but the choice of Ubuntu (w/ Unity) vs. FreeBSD (w/ KDE) is border-line irrelevant. (FreeBSD might be getting hammered by background KDE processes.)

    ... On the other hand, people far smarter than me have been claiming for years that using self compiled packages (as opposed to disto packages whenever available) makes most of these benchmarks irrelevant.

    - Gilboa
    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX680, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2412..
    BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Congelli501 View Post
    Please add a little conclusion at the end of your articles, like "x wins for Ubuntu, y for FreeBSD and z equality, so ... <a little analysis>" . I don't want to read every benchmark in each article.
    I would also like to see conclusions, it is one of the basics of writing. We don't always have time to read the full article, analyze and summarize ourselves.
    Typically, I read the intro and jump straight to the conclusion. Then, when I feel a strong interest or want to check some details more deeply, I read the other pages.

    So the lack of a few and clear words at the end is a big annoyance. Please add a "conclusions" section.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gilboa View Post
    Still comparing apples to oranges.
    True, this time Linux won (unlike the previous Linux vs. FreeBSD benchmark), but the choice of Ubuntu (w/ Unity) vs. FreeBSD (w/ KDE) is border-line irrelevant. (FreeBSD might be getting hammered by background KDE processes.)

    ... On the other hand, people far smarter than me have been claiming for years that using self compiled packages (as opposed to disto packages whenever available) makes most of these benchmarks irrelevant.

    - Gilboa
    That should be a non-issue. None of this depends on X Windows, so the X Server could be off for these tests (not that Michael did that), but even with it on, the GUIs are simply idle and therefore inactive.

    The principle difference in computational performance is GCC versus Clang. The disk performance is ext4 versus UFS. You have a poorly designed compiler that is fast simply because it has been around for decades against a well designed compiler that is slow because it is relatively new. At the same time, you have a file system which favors speed over data integrity against a filesystem which favors data integrity over speed.

    Michael could have in theory recompiled FreeBSD with GCC and included it in the comparison and run these benchmarks with X windows on and off to allow for proper analysis, but he appears to be more interested in having sensationalist articles than having a valid testing methodology.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    That should be a non-issue. None of this depends on X Windows, so the X Server could be off for these tests (not that Michael did that), but even with it on, the GUIs are simply idle and therefore inactive.

    The principle difference in computational performance is GCC versus Clang. The disk performance is ext4 versus UFS. You have a poorly designed compiler that is fast simply because it has been around for decades against a well designed compiler that is slow because it is relatively new. At the same time, you have a file system which favors speed over data integrity against a filesystem which favors data integrity over speed.

    Michael could have in theory recompiled FreeBSD with GCC and included it in the comparison and run these benchmarks with X windows on and off to allow for proper analysis, but he appears to be more interested in having sensationalist articles than having a valid testing methodology.
    The BSD column clearly states ZFS. Next!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    That should be a non-issue. None of this depends on X Windows, so the X Server could be off for these tests (not that Michael did that), but even with it on, the GUIs are simply idle and therefore inactive.
    I couldn't disagree more.
    On my two dual Xeon workstations, kwin eats ~3-9% CPU - even when the machine is idle.
    Beyond that, KDE is running large number of background processes (e.g. Nepomuk, virtuoso-t which can easily eat 50-100% CPU while working) that must be manually disabled.
    On the hand, at least in the 11.4, Unity was eating a lot CPU time while being idle.
    All in all, both Unity and KDE may have considerable adverse effect on the benchmark results.

    - Gilboa
    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX680, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2412..
    BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default

    This benchmark really crap, really unfair and gives bad impression to other party. Getting link-bait... popularity only...

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gilboa View Post
    I couldn't disagree more.
    On my two dual Xeon workstations, kwin eats ~3-9% CPU - even when the machine is idle.
    Beyond that, KDE is running large number of background processes (e.g. Nepomuk, virtuoso-t which can easily eat 50-100% CPU while working) that must be manually disabled.
    On the hand, at least in the 11.4, Unity was eating a lot CPU time while being idle.
    All in all, both Unity and KDE may have considerable adverse effect on the benchmark results.

    - Gilboa
    What version of kwin? The kwin developer fixed an important bug in 4.7.2 and right now, I unable to see CPU utilization go above 1%. Furthermore, I don't have Nepomuk installed.

Posting Permissions

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