Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Wed 13th May 2009 01:18 UTC
Benchmarks Phoronix, known for their various speed tests and reviews, compared the latest in Ubuntu and what, until recently, used to be the lastest in Mac OS X with 29 different benchmarking tests. Some of the results were rather interesting.
Thread beginning with comment 363208
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
intel on linux isnt a great comparison
by ideasman42 on Wed 13th May 2009 01:29 UTC
Member since:

Ok, so you can justify testing graphics on linux with an intel card just because most people have intel cards but its not secret that intel drivers (whilst being opensource and improving blah blah), are nowhere near as good as intel drivers on other OSX or Windows.

Even so its fair to say that this benchmark shows exactly how poor intel performance on linux/ubuntu is so maybe this might do some good to kick the xorgintel driver team into making some better drivers.

The thing that gets my goat is that this benchmark and the comments that go with it suggest that linux has poor graphics performance in general which simply isnt true - animation studios and people doing serious 3D graphics work use linux, mostly with NVidia graphics sinec their support is way better then intel and amd.

Edited 2009-05-13 01:31 UTC

Reply Score: 8

averycfay Member since:

They definitely should have used a system that would be decently supported in both OS's (nvidia graphics). Linux lost all the benchmarks that involved graphics acceleration, which is unsurprising I guess considering the quality of intel graphics drivers.

Also, this article reminded me of why I never go to phoronix... page 1 of 34834, sigh.

Reply Parent Score: 7

by Gone fishing on Fri 15th May 2009 05:17 in reply to "RE: intel on linux isnt a great comparison"
Gone fishing Member since:

I open The Register and what do I see

Karmic Koala - the next Ubuntu - will deliver improved video performance, tapping a new video driver architecture from Intel

The thing about Ubuntu and Linux in general it evolves and improves so fast

Reply Parent Score: 2

Auzy Member since:

That might be true, but I have yet to have seen any graphics card which runs faster on Ubuntu (even the Nvidia ones in the past at least seemed to be quite consistently slower on linux).

There are two problems here:
1) Having a kernel that forces people to provide open source drivers. Whilst linus tolerates closed source drivers, its a risk creating them. And companies aren't going to pour all their optimisations into open drivers which any other company can just steal the optimisations. Otherwise its like handing over money to the competition.

There is no good justification for this. If Open source is that great, then such drivers will succeed regardless.

2) Ubuntu doesn't develop linux, it just grabs a bunch of packages which other distro's have worked on. Canonical seems to only concentrate on their own projects.

Whilst the foundation of Ubuntu is shaky, Canonical is off spreading their resources further and starting other projects like the netbook remix, which has a shaking foundation too because barely any drivers on either are complete. And I have seen NO evidence of Ubuntu trying to collaborate with other companies either, to determine their needs. Everything seems based on assumptions.

3) The community. I've learnt from the Ubuntu brainstorm community that frankly, the most vocal Linux users are idiots. That's the biggest problem. I've argued with Linux users who believed that time shouldn't be wasted on wysiwyg editors because grandma should learn mockup languages / CSS instead for her site. And I've argued against many users who were totally convinced that DEB's/RPM's are more secure then shell scripts. Ubuntu's vocal population I think has turned too much into politicians who care more about spreading OSS then aiming to make the best software.

Compare QT/Cocoa to GTK for instance. GTK obviously gets dominated in general cases, yet, plenty of people seem to be on a crusade against C++. Its rediculous.

And because of the community, the end result is that Linux is still too risky to develop for.

I wouldn't blame the xorgintel team for this. If the community gave up their holy war and started once again writing the best software they can, because they want to (not because of politics). You'd end up with an MIT kernel which was completely open in all ways, and software which was developed with users in mind.

Reply Parent Score: 8

lemur2 Member since:

Having a kernel that forces people to provide open source drivers. Whilst linus tolerates closed source drivers, its a risk creating them. And companies aren't going to pour all their optimisations into open drivers which any other company can just steal the optimisations. Otherwise its like handing over money to the competition.

Assumes that only companies can write optimised software. Not a valid assumption at all. The one and only advantage that companies have in writing software is that companies have access to secret information held by ... companies.


OK, so ATI have been good enough to release documentation recently, and even some code and a programming guide.

Expect the decent, open-source, 3D drvier for ATI chips to follow within a month or so.

Clearly not ready yet, but definitely on its way. Enjoy (when ready).

So ATI have released documentation (specifications) of their chips to open source programmers, open source programmers are busily writing an open-source driver for Linux for ATI chips, so that ATI chips will soon become the most powerful graphics chips available with a decent (non-binary-blob) 3D driver for Linux, which will no doubt be supported directly within the kernel, and hence Linux buying public will tend to buy ATI chips.

This is giving money away ... how exactly?

Edited 2009-05-13 02:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

averycfay Member since:

This whole issue has nothing to do with having an open source kernel or gtk vs. cocoa or whatever.

It has everything to do with market share. Linux will get great desktop hardware support (3d graphics, wireless, acpi) when it has decent desktop market share. Look at the server market right now. You don't have to buy a server that's supported in linux. Every server product is well supported in linux. A manufacturer that put out a server product that wasn't supported in linux would be laughed at. All of that is because linux is installed on a good portion of servers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

SEJeff Member since:

Its been awhile since seriously posting on osnews but this requires a response. In my professional opinion over the internet, you sir have no clue what you are talking about.

Hmmm lets see what does Ubuntu develop? How about notify-osd, the new growl-like notification system which is controversial but very pretty? How about usplash, the userspace bootsplash (soon to be replaced however). How about upstart, the new event based init replacement good enough for Fedora AND Debian to both adopt in the default installs? Granted, it is (IMO) crap, but how about the python ORM storm? Do you even know what an ORM is used for?

How about Yeah they've written a good bit of code. How many patches you ask?
jeff@desktopmonster:~$ wget -qO - | wc -l

Seriously how can you say, "Whilst the foundation of Ubuntu is shaky..." when it is based off of Debian? Are you saying there is a lack of Debian developers or packages? Sure a lot of them are not friendly to people like yourself but they aren't ghosts. Frankly, you are talking out of your fourth point of contact. Call your proctologist and ask him to find your head, then take a shower and come back to play.

If you get the "deb/rpm" from a reputable source like oh your distribution's package repository it will be GPG signed. Yes my friend, that is more secure than a shell script.

Really I shouldn't have bitten as you obviously troll. The only argument I totally agree with you on is QT/Cocoa vs GTK. GTK is crap compared to either of those but is being worked on. Until next time kids...

Reply Parent Score: 5

fithisux Member since:

I have to agree with you on Ubuntu grabbing packages. Moreover at least for me the Intel performance of Linux is not that good. Why? On my AMD systems I see great improvements. Moreover the quality of packages has degraded but not due to their development, but due to packaging. A comparison with Gentoo would be more fair if Linux was the target. If GFX is the target, Ubuntu is fine.

Reply Parent Score: 2

r_a_trip Member since:

Yeah, in a perfect world everybody sings Kumbayaa.

In the real world we really need the GPL for all those individuals who'd like to take for themselves and shove the rest in the dirt.

Reply Parent Score: 3

John Blink Member since:

I love hearing about movie studios using linux for their 3D work.

It would be great if OSNEWS could try contacting these studios and see if they would be willing to comment on it.

eg. If they were using mac or windows on their clients PC how did it improve things in using GNU/Linux?

What Distro?


Reply Parent Score: 2

ideasman42 Member since:

Not exactly Pixar but for BigBuckBunny at the Blender institute we ran all 64bit linux workstations with 4-8gig of ram and 2,4 and 8 core PCs.
Whilst we didnt benchmark the NVidia cards on windows and linux generally performance was good, and there was no way we were going to use 64bit OSX or Windows for the short movie.

Time lapse of the studio

Info about the PC's

Reply Parent Score: 6

Lennie Member since:

I think you are looking for this presentation:

And some people say graphics are shit on Linux. ;-)

"And GIMP doesn't compare to Photoshop", well there is CinePaint ( ).

It does things Photoshop can't and "CinePaint originated as a rewrite of the GIMP 8-bit engine in 1998 and still superficially resembles GIMP". But it's a bit specific for it's field.

Edited 2009-05-13 08:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1