Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Windows 8 vs. Linux Graphics, Source Benchmarks Coming

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    204

    Default

    If not Ubuntu, I definitely say Linux Mint.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I love Fedora a lot and always have, but as can be seen from the articles, I generally only use it for benchmarks around the time it's actually released when the packages are still fresh namely because:

    - Fedora Rawhide packages ship with a lot of debug cruft that can affect the performance so using those experimental packages unfortunately doesn't work out well.

    - Ubuntu is convenient for kernel tests with their Ubuntu Mainline Kernel PPA where they also package the daily Git kernels. As far as I know there isn't any similar archive for Fedora. I can easily build my own Git kernel, but when (re)installing systems often, this is very convenient, plus if people have a question about my kernel configuration or want to also test the latest kernel, I can simply tell them to go to the PPA.

    I think those are my two main gripes these days but yeah aside from that have been using Xubuntu a lot lately.
    Valid points about Rawhide and the Mainline PPA being available. In that case yeah I would say move to X/Kubuntu, or Linux Mint (Debian edition maybe? Is that compatibile with the Mainline kernel packages?). Just because dealing with XMir alone is going to start messing up your benchmarks and its only going to get worse as things move on

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Valid points about Rawhide and the Mainline PPA being available. In that case yeah I would say move to X/Kubuntu, or Linux Mint (Debian edition maybe? Is that compatibile with the Mainline kernel packages?). Just because dealing with XMir alone is going to start messing up your benchmarks and its only going to get worse as things move on
    hmm a lot of users are dropping Ubuntu but yeah Mint, Deban SID, Fedora, sound's nice
    i Like to See a Linux Mint MATE (or just Linux Mint VS Linux Mint Debian) Vs Ubuntu Mir Vs Windows
    we know Xmir even makes puppies cry

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Valid points about Rawhide and the Mainline PPA being available. In that case yeah I would say move to X/Kubuntu, or Linux Mint (Debian edition maybe? Is that compatibile with the Mainline kernel packages?). Just because dealing with XMir alone is going to start messing up your benchmarks and its only going to get worse as things move on
    Both Unity/Mir and Gnome/Wayland will run within Ubuntu, so it will continue to be possible to benchmark both setups against each other. The Xorg packages aren't going to be removed. Having said that, the more data points the better. If it is possible to benchmark other distributions then go for it. Debian sid might the easiest, obviously being Ubuntu upstream, and it should already have all the latest packages including kernel.

    There may not be any huge differences between desktops or distributions: the previous distro comparison showed a benchmark variance of only a few FPS between distributions, though the previous desktop comparison did show Gnome and KDE trailing by 15%-35% on a couple of benchmarks.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisb View Post
    Both Unity/Mir and Gnome/Wayland will run within Ubuntu, so it will continue to be possible to benchmark both setups against each other. The Xorg packages aren't going to be removed. Having said that, the more data points the better. If it is possible to benchmark other distributions then go for it. Debian sid might the easiest, obviously being Ubuntu upstream, and it should already have all the latest packages including kernel.

    There may not be any huge differences between desktops or distributions: the previous distro comparison showed a benchmark variance of only a few FPS between distributions, though the previous desktop comparison did show Gnome and KDE trailing by 15%-35% on a couple of benchmarks.
    most of Gnome's Lag is going to be fixxed in Wayland from what i can see now as for KDE hmm

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    536

    Default

    +1, it would be better if the benchmarks were done on Xubuntu with compositing disabled.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    It's generally a lot more effective when people provide test requests / feedback / suggestions prior to writing a given article than giving feedback afterwards when nothing can be changed until the next time such tests are done...
    Something for the Haswell graphics test: a couple of people pointed this out in the comments last week, in the frame latency people are more concerned with maximum than average because that is what causes jitter:

    Quote Originally Posted by sireangelus View Post
    To Michael: i think you're missing the purpose of latency benchmarking. It's not only to have a average reading, but what matters most is how many, how frequent and the severity of the frame spikes, because that's the major cause of "perceived lagging"(beyond networking), usually a slightly slower frame average but with a much more stable frame latency is preferable over an inflated fps average with lots of spikes(like we see on this review, windows have It worse.)
    This is also why I prefer to play LoL on Linux even if the avg on windows is way higher.. I have frame latency problems even with VSync on and an apparent rock-solid 60fps
    In the OpenArena latency graph Linux actually fared much better than Windows but that wasn't really obvious. It might be better to report a simple metric that condenses the data to a single value that represents "how many, how frequent and the severity of the frame spikes". I'm not sure what is best, what are other sites doing? The simplest way might be to just report the variance of the latency of each frame (0 is better)? Or add all the latencies of each frame multiplied by some weight that penalises higher values eg "sum(latency**2)". I'm sure others have some ideas.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Calinou View Post
    +1, it would be better if the benchmarks were done on Xubuntu with compositing disabled.
    To say that a benchmark is "better" you have to first answer the question: "What is the point of the benchmark?" If the point is to measure the performance of Ubuntu+XFCE, then using Xubuntu is a good idea. Perhaps there are more interesting questions that could be asked.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,988

    Default

    Quoting myself from the other frame latency topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    @Michael

    It's completely possible to measure this for all OpenGL apps just like the id engines do for their own frames. I've been sitting on a 84-line library that does just that, maybe I should publish that on github or something. Linux-only though.

    The other thing, please do the other common representation of the latency graphs - a sorted graph, with marker lines for 50%, 90%, and 95% thresholds.
    Chrisb, the other sites do that sorted graph. It lets you easily see that half of the frames were under X ms, and so on for 90% and 95%. It's a better way than a single max number.

Posting Permissions

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