Is intrepid really slower?

[jc87]

I´m opening this thread based not in the benchmarks conducted by phoronix, but in my own personal experience.

Since i dist-upgraded i´ve been noticing some performance loss, specifically in video playing, where seems to occur a small lag during the opening of the video player and the loading of the video (during which the totem-xine windows goes gray for a second or two according to the compiz efect).

Nautilus also is a little slower when opening directories with a lot of video files.

Firefox may have become slower, but i cant tell for sure.

As anyone else noticed real performance loss?

[beno1990]

I haven't noticed any performance loss so far in Intrepid Ibex apart from a slight drop in frame rate with Compiz, but I fixed that with minimal tweaking.

Apart from that I really haven't seen any noticeable loss of performance or higher processor consumption.

[sleepingdragon]

For me, Intrepid has been faster! The long boot time is still something to be worked on, but apps fire up more quickly, moving between folders is faster and file copying is certainly improved.

All in all, it has certainly been an upgrade for me, but the KDE devs need to do much more with 4.1. It's still buggy as hell.

[K.Mandla]

No more than any other version of Ubuntu.

If you want speed, either start with a command-line version, or start with a different distro. Debian is oftentimes much faster than Ubuntu, and behaves much the same way.

But complaining about speed in Ubuntu is kind of like complaining about how your minivan can't do 0-to-60 in under two minutes. Neither one is really intended for performance.

[50words]

I have only upgraded one computer, a ThinkPad T43. After initial good impressions, it is definitely slower. It feels linked to the graphics, to me, so I wonder if the new X is the culprit.

On the plus side, suspend is way better than before.

[kevin11951]

No more than any other version of Ubuntu.

If you want speed, either start with a command-line version, or start with a different distro. Debian is oftentimes much faster than Ubuntu, and behaves much the same way.

But complaining about speed in Ubuntu is kind of like complaining about how your minivan can't do 0-to-60 in under two minutes. Neither one is really intended for performance.

that is one slow minivan, think about it. count up to 120, and then realize thats how long it would take for this car to reach highway speed!?

[aaaantoine]

On the plus side, suspend is way better than before.

I decided just now to test this on my own laptop. Indeed, not only does the system fully suspend, but it fully resumes, even reconnecting to the wireless network.

This is my 4th Ubuntu release, and the first where I can finally feel comfortable suspending my laptop instead of shutting down.

[tuxxy]

I´m opening this thread based not in the benchmarks conducted by phoronix, but in my own personal experience.

Since i dist-upgraded i´ve been noticing some performance loss, specifically in video playing, where seems to occur a small lag during the opening of the video player and the loading of the video (during which the totem-xine windows goes gray for a second or two according to the compiz efect).

Nautilus also is a little slower when opening directories with a lot of video files.

Firefox may have become slower, but i cant tell for sure.

As anyone else noticed real performance loss?

Not at all I would say performance increases yes! especially Flash :)

[Npl]

Dont know if its slower than Hardy, but the UI is as slugish as usual. Moving around a window produces heavy CPU usage(maxes out 1 core on my Dualcore-CPU), makes video-playback jerky and sound stutters.

[FuturePilot]

I haven't noticed it being any slower than Hardy or previous versions. It's actually a lot faster than Hardy on my PC.

[billgoldberg]

I´m opening this thread based not in the benchmarks conducted by phoronix, but in my own personal experience.

Since i dist-upgraded i´ve been noticing some performance loss, specifically in video playing, where seems to occur a small lag during the opening of the video player and the loading of the video (during which the totem-xine windows goes gray for a second or two according to the compiz efect).

Nautilus also is a little slower when opening directories with a lot of video files.

Firefox may have become slower, but i cant tell for sure.

As anyone else noticed real performance loss?

The loss in performance more that likely is because you upgraded and didn't do a clean install.

I did a clean install and the Ibex feels faster than Hardy.

[FuturePilot]

The loss in performance more that likely is because you upgraded and didn't do a clean install.

I did a clean install and the Ibex feels faster than Hardy.

I did an upgrade and it's faster....

[-grubby]

I did an upgrade and it's faster....

I didn't upgrade and it's the same..

[Vadi]

I've reinstalled Ubuntu to upgrade and get the full harddrive encryption enabled. Suprisingly, my boot time is faster now, and applications do feel quicker.

So... can't confirm. Even though I was prepared for a speed loss with the full encryption.

[Private_Ops]

I've noticed a definet speed boost on my laptop (Compaq V6500).

Amazingly everything worked with me having to ghetto rig drivers (Broadcomm 4311).

Only problem I've encountered so far is that it hangs on bootup. I have to hit the power button a few seconds after it hangs and it boots right up.

[lifestream]

Nautilus is the only thing that seems slower to me. Always. Not only when browsing movies or big music folders. ALWAYS.

If I didn't need it for SSH (I don't like other SSH programs) I would uninstall that piece of @(*#.

But I love love love Thunar, so.. :) I only use Nautilus for SSH now.

Everything else, though, is quite faster :3

[reacocard]

It's slightly faster for me, I think the difference may be in the graphics drivers. I have an intel chip and it's definitely better in intrepid, especially for video. I have noticed my cpu sits slightly higher at idle than before (by 1-2%), but I've been running intrepid since the first beta so things may improve after a clean reinstall of the final.

@lifestream - have you tried sshfs? I admit its not quite as streamlined as just typing in the address but I've found it to work very well and it is filemanager independent.

[markharding557]

can't tell any difference myself.
i still get annoyed with having to get rid of compiz though

[aaaantoine]

My last post on this thread was off-topic, so I'll respond with one that is on-topic.

A number of bugs in Intrepid appear to be causing parts of the OS to run slowly, stutter, or completely freeze for random lengths of time, ranging from a few seconds to a few minutes. As for the cause of these bugs, I haven't the slightest idea.

However, another plus is that the CPU looks (according to THRM) and feels (according to hand on keyboard) like it's running cooler than before. When at half throttle, the difference in temperature is 5-10 C from Hardy. Full throttle temperatures are about the same, but still 1 or 2 C cooler.

[Koori23]

I run XUbuntu Intrepid on my laptop. Yes it is slower, it also requires about 230MB of RAM at startup after a clean install, or so HTOP reports.

I won't upgrade my main desktop from Hardy.

Whoever compared Intrepid to a MiniVan and "it's not designed for speed".. I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Not really a good selling poin in my mind.

[Koori23]

I run XUbuntu Intrepid on my laptop. Yes it is slower, it also requires about 230MB of RAM at startup after a clean install, or so HTOP reports.

I won't upgrade my main desktop from Hardy.

Whoever compared Intrepid to a MiniVan and "it's not designed for speed".. I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Not really a good selling point in my mind.

[antiloop]

It's a lot faster for me. I didn't use 8.04 too much but Ubuntu is slowly growing on me again.

[jayson.rowe]

Seems faster too me - boots faster too. Did a clean install though. My system is fairly high-end though (3GHz C2D, 8GB DDR2 1066) running the 64-bit variant.

[Muppeteer]

Intrepid is much slower for me than Hardy was. Thankfully i use Arch primarily and it's really responsive. Think i'm gonna ditch Ubuntu altogether as it seems to be getting slower and more bloated. Time to stick another distro on that partition instead i think.

[fedex1993]

everything is slow my bootime is way worse its fail for my and this computer is a 3.4 ghz 7950 gt 2gb of ram it should be screaming but its not now 8.04 its screaming.

[kpkeerthi]

Yes. I find it slower than previous Ubuntu releases.

[ellaguno]

I upgraded and is slower in my Laptop Dell xps m1210.

Pidgin some times takes ages to change a tab conversation. Also Firefox freezes for moments frequently. This didn't happened with hardy.

Anyway I knew upgrade is not a good idea but had to test it anyway and it is better than the former one but still far.

Suspend is great but Hibernate didn't work.

[sdowney717]

I have started with feisty and steadily upgraded every time.
I always felt Feisty was the fastest.

As is true with software, you need to upgrade hardware over time.
So slight speed differences are normal. The more code gets pumped in, the longer it takes to execute.

One thing does bug me a little, I keep getting better graphics cards just to try and keep up, yet overall my desktop experience is always about the same.

[markharding557]

To all those with slowness problems try removing tracker this can be a hog on older hardware

[Vadi]

Tracker is disabled by default though, it does nothing

[jumponskis]

I didn't upgrade and it's the same..

why exactly were you thanked for this post...

[jumponskis]

Intrepid is much slower for me than Hardy was. Thankfully i use Arch primarily and it's really responsive. Think i'm gonna ditch Ubuntu altogether as it seems to be getting slower and more bloated. Time to stick another distro on that partition instead i think.

HOW DARE YOU! THIS IS BLASPHEMY!!!:mad:

[hardyn]

overall, i have found intrepid to be a little more snappy than hardy... at worst they would be same.