Phoronix compared the performance figures of Mac OS X 10.5.5 with those of Ubuntu 8.10. They conclude: "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."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-16
"I know from my experience that 3d OpenGL apps in Linux easily outperform their OSX counterparts. Talking about real world results..."
Strange, I've never seen any 3D app running on Mac OS X outperforming OS X, i am sorry but OS X has a much better Open GL implementation than Linux, pure and simple.
Also as a side remark, with the last Xcode development environment version (3.1), Gcc 4.2 is provided among Gcc 4.0 and from what i saw using it, it is significantly faster than Gcc 4.0 for compilation.
And i wonder if the small differences between Mac OS X and Ubuntu x86_64 in the encoding benchmarks are not simply due to the fact that Lame, Ogg encodind and FFmpeg are not compiled in 64 modes on Mac OS X. On Ubuntu x86_64, they take advantage of the additional registers in 64 mode particularly beneficial for this sort of benchmarks.
Member since:2007-02-17
That may be true in certain cases but I have yet to see anything really push opengl on a Mac. Even then if you were say do this benchmark comparison on a Mac Book Pro SR or later, Linux would win hands down because while the Nvidia drivers on Linux aren't perfect they are a hell of a lot better than the sluggish, buggy drivers included in OSX. If they use ATI hardware that's a totally different story because ATI's hardware has better drivers under OSX. Intel hardware just all around sucks. I do agree with you that the opengl stack in OSX is better than Linux, but a lot of that has to do with the way X's architectureand how it relates to the hardware, this is being worked on at the moment.
Member since:2007-07-03
Member since:2005-09-13
Member since:2008-02-05
I don't see why it would be such a bad idea to perform a benchmark like this on the Mac Mini.
After all, it's supposed to be plenty fast enough to run both OSes on, so as long as you're doing an apples to apples comparison, it can be on as powerful (or as crippled) hardware as one likes, right?
And as always, Apple has the advantage of a 'home game' (since they own the Mac platform, they can optimize for it)
Member since:2008-05-25
Member since:
2007-07-03
Why in all world would you do a benchmark-comparison like this on a Mac Mini?
If you're testing OpenGL performance, maybe - just maybe - you should test cards that are actually built for 3d performance.
I know from my experience that 3d OpenGL apps in Linux easily outperform their OSX counterparts. Talking about real world results...