PDA

View Full Version : Phoronix Benchmarks - Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Mac OS X



conphara
May 12th, 2009, 09:46 AM
Check these new benchmarks.

This was done half a year ago (Ubuntu Intrepid):http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_macosx&num=1

Quote: "Apple's Mac OS X 10.5.5 "Leopard" had strong performance leads over Canonical's Ubuntu 8.10 "Intrepid Ibex" in the OpenGL performance with the integrated Intel graphics, disk benchmarking, and SQLite database in particular. Ubuntu on the other hand was leading in the compilation and BYTE Unix Benchmark. In the audio/video encoding and PHP XML tests the margins were smaller and no definitive leader had emerged. With the Java environment, Sunflow and Bork were faster in Mac OS X, but the Intrepid Ibex in SciMark 2 attacked the Leopard. These results though were all from an Apple Mac Mini."


This was published today (Ubuntu Jaunty):
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_jaunty_osx&num=1

Quote: "Overall, Mac OS X 10.5.6 already outpaces Ubuntu 9.04 when it comes to many respects of the desktop and server performance. With the introduction of Mac OS X 10.6.0 "Snow Leopard" in a few months, the Apple gains will likely widen considering the efforts they are putting forth on improving the performance via a smaller memory footprint, OpenCL, etc. The graphics performance in Ubuntu 9.10, which will be out after the release of Mac OS X 10.6, may improve with Intel working to fix its regressions and Gallium3D could be enabled in time."


My comment on this. People are raving about Windows 7's great performance and that's what wins them over. Looks better than Vista and performs better than XP. This is what Windows people want on their new Netbooks, at least the ones I've talked to. One friend showed me Windows 7 on his Netbook and it performed really well, much better than Ubuntu Jaunty which he tried for only a week. And if it wasn't for Windows 7, he would have put Leopard on it.
Snow Leopard will probably come out earlier than anticipated and is expected to be even faster and leaner than the current version.

How can WE make Ubuntu perform just as good or better as the current and future competition?
It would be nice to see if this is an open source or an Ubuntu concern, so Phoronix should benchmark different Linux distributions against each other.

Any comments?

Corelogik
May 12th, 2009, 10:13 AM
Personally I could care less about benchmarks,... as long as it doesnt take all day to encode my video.

Benchmarks are like statistics, they can be made to say anything the tester wants. Just a question choosing the "right" benchmark or the "right" thing to test,...

JohnFH
May 12th, 2009, 10:48 AM
Personally I could care less about benchmarks,... as long as it doesnt take all day to encode my video.


If you could care less about benchmarks that means you do care about them a bit. The right phrase is "I COULDN'T care less". <sigh>

Sand & Mercury
May 12th, 2009, 10:50 AM
If you could care less about benchmarks that means you do care about them a bit. The right phrase is "I COULDN'T care less". <sigh>

Both are in common use and mean the same thing

JohnFH
May 12th, 2009, 11:05 AM
Both are in common use and mean the same thing

Are you serious? They do not mean the same thing. How can I explain it further when it's very very simple? One phrase says "could", the other says "couldn't", so how can they mean the same thing? :confused:

LightB
May 12th, 2009, 11:07 AM
Stop lying to these people. W7 does not perform better than XP. Not in this universe, not by a long shot.

kirsis
May 12th, 2009, 11:52 AM
Stop lying to these people. W7 does not perform better than XP. Not in this universe, not by a long shot.

Well, if you say so, it must be true.

W7rc boots faster on my laptop and there's definitely no visible slowdown on the desktop/in applications from XP, so it's possible that on certain hardware it could operate faster than XP.

3rdalbum
May 12th, 2009, 12:31 PM
Benchmarks only show how fast the benchmark can run, and it's common opinion in the computer industry that today's graphics cards are built specifically for the most common benchmark games.

In real-world use, Mac OS X has some memory-leak issues especially when using Carbon applications, and massive performance issues after you have used the Classic virtualiser. Not to mention Appletalk using 100% of the CPU...

pwnst*r
May 12th, 2009, 12:38 PM
Both are in common use and mean the same thing

they don't mean the same thing.

Npl
May 12th, 2009, 12:50 PM
I dont care about benchmarks, at least not until Linux Desktops get responsive enough to be worthwile for using it more than just a few minutes.

pwnst*r
May 12th, 2009, 01:59 PM
I dont care about benchmarks, at least not until Linux Desktops get responsive enough to be worthwile for using it more than just a few minutes.

i'm not a linux fanboi, but this has to be the post of the week and it's not even Saturday.

3rdalbum
May 12th, 2009, 02:15 PM
I dont care about benchmarks, at least not until Linux Desktops get responsive enough to be worthwile for using it more than just a few minutes.

I'm just troubleshooting a friend's Macbook Air. I think Gnome on my Aspire One is faster.

Seriously, the Macbook Air takes a good five seconds to return the output of the "last" command in single-user mode - and it's empty!

LowSky
May 12th, 2009, 02:49 PM
benchmarks mean absolutly nothing these days.

Seriously who cares about performance numbers that mean nothing to a person using a word processor, or surfing the web. Any machine built in the last 5 years with a decent braodband connection can do most normal tasks really really well. If you have to complain about a program taking 5 seconds to open, or how fast it takes to boot, then you have some out of wack priorities.

Musky Melon
May 12th, 2009, 04:07 PM
You'd hope that OS X would be faster given that Apple controls the hardware it runs on.

I don't see why this is so hard for people to accept. It's faster. Might not mean a whole lot to somebody who isn't going to push the limits of their system but it's still faster.

sim-value
May 12th, 2009, 06:24 PM
You'd hope that OS X would be faster given that Apple controls the hardware it runs on.

I don't see why this is so hard for people to accept. It's faster. Might not mean a whole lot to somebody who isn't going to push the limits of their system but it's still faster.

That MaC DID ran on Mac hardware...

Skripka
May 12th, 2009, 06:34 PM
That MaC DID ran on Mac hardware...

That mac was also one of the lowest end computers still sold.

keykero
May 12th, 2009, 06:49 PM
Personally I could care less about benchmarks,...

Benchmarks don't matter, unless Linux wins in them, right?

Sand & Mercury
May 12th, 2009, 06:59 PM
they don't mean the same thing.
No, not technically. But from the way they're used, they end up meaning the same thing.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

conundrumx
May 12th, 2009, 07:08 PM
...

In real-world use, Mac OS X has some memory-leak issues especially when using Carbon applications, and massive performance issues after you have used the Classic virtualiser. Not to mention Appletalk using 100% of the CPU...

I've not run into any memory leak issues, or 100% CPU use. As far as Carbon apps, they are outdated and (with the exception of Finder) I try to avoid them. Anyone still using classic Mac OS apps at this point is mentally unwell, or not too concerned about the performance implications. Probably both.

artir
May 12th, 2009, 07:11 PM
Meeek, error, Ubuntu 9.04 overpaces OSX. Remember OSX is a 64 bit operating system, so it shall be compared to other 64 bit OSes too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.5
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html

pwnst*r
May 12th, 2009, 08:27 PM
No, not technically. But from the way they're used, they end up meaning the same thing.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

just because most of the public is wrong doesn't mean i will follow.

thisllub
May 12th, 2009, 08:41 PM
Common tasks are much faster on Linux.
IF you use a high productivity WM like OpenBox.

Corelogik
May 12th, 2009, 08:47 PM
Benchmarks don't matter, unless Linux wins in them, right?

Nope. Not even then. I don't care who wins which benchmark with which platform. Doesn't matter to me at all.

Benchmarks will say whatever the test was setup to say. End of story. By picking the benchmark suite to run, the app to run the test in all they way down to the files that are chosen for processing.

Just like statistics, they will say what the tester wants them to say. I therefor have no interest. Apple skews theirs, Microsoft skews theirs, so do Intel and AMD,...

I have a simple test for computer horsepower, does it do what I need it to do? If the answer is yes, then it's fast enough, if not then I move up the power/speed scale until it does.

For the grammer police, I meant "I couldn't care less" as in "I don't care at all". :P