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 363230
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'm surprised but does this matter?
by bousozoku on Wed 13th May 2009 02:48 UTC
bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

I remember seeing so many comparisons between PowerPC machines and various machines running Linux and the whole monolithic kernel vs. micro kernel argument and how Mac OS X was always severely thumped in every performance comparison.

So, Mac OS X wins a few tests, good or bad, but why are people making excuses for Linux here? Wasn't it fair in the past that the graphics drivers weren't the best or that Canonical didn't optimise anything when Linux was winning?

It's not exactly that any of this matters since it's not going to change anyone's mind really. I'd be more interested in seeing how FreeBSD performs against Mac OS X since they share bits and pieces quite often.

Struggle is good. If gives us a constant goal, right?

Reply Score: 4

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I remember seeing so many comparisons between PowerPC machines and various machines running Linux and the whole monolithic kernel vs. micro kernel argument and how Mac OS X was always severely thumped in every performance comparison.


I too saw those marks and interesting how you ignore the follow up which explained why some of them were the result of the default configuration as with the case of the MySQL benchmark. It has nothing to do with micro versus monolithic versus hybrid versus chocolate bar with sprinkles on top.

Mac OS X was designed first and foremost as highly responsive desktop operating system. There are sacrifices when you focus on latency and responsiveness over throughput; and yes, when it comes to responsiveness, Linux doesn't even come close to Mac OS X. If I counted the number of times my netbook came bogged down and poorly responsive with a couple of applications open versus Windows on the same machine - I'd be here all day.

Reply Parent Score: 1

6c1452 Member since:
2007-08-29

Mac OS X was designed first and foremost as highly responsive desktop operating system. There are sacrifices when you focus on latency and responsiveness over throughput; and yes, when it comes to responsiveness, Linux doesn't even come close to Mac OS X. If I counted the number of times my netbook came bogged down and poorly responsive with a couple of applications open versus Windows on the same machine - I'd be here all day.


It sounds more like you need to upgrade your ram than get a kernel optimized for desktop use. It's not exactly a secret that current mainstream Linux distributions are less memory efficient than XP

I find OS X to be downright viscous -- as though there is perceivable latency between the input devices and the screen. It's possible I'm just imagining things because of the way desktop effects slow down some other actions, but that's how it feels.

Reply Parent Score: 1

bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23


I too saw those marks and interesting how you ignore the follow up which explained why some of them were the result of the default configuration as with the case of the MySQL benchmark. It has nothing to do with micro versus monolithic versus hybrid versus chocolate bar with sprinkles on top.

Mac OS X was designed first and foremost as highly responsive desktop operating system. There are sacrifices when you focus on latency and responsiveness over throughput; and yes, when it comes to responsiveness, Linux doesn't even come close to Mac OS X. If I counted the number of times my netbook came bogged down and poorly responsive with a couple of applications open versus Windows on the same machine - I'd be here all day.


Until 10.4.x, Mac OS X was never interactively responsive for me. I know that was the intention but it never happened, even on dual processor machines. My Ubuntu machine feels better but even that has some odd performance foibles.

Reply Parent Score: 2

gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Responsiveness is heavily dependant on the machine load.

Under low-load (means less than 100%) conditions Linux is a bit less responsive than Windows. Under full load Linux is by far more responsive than Windows (at least XP).

I had two machines with 4 cores each, the Linux machine even being slightly slower (2.8 GHz vs. 3.0 GHz).
I ran a finite element calculation on each using all 4 cores, both machines needed 1.5 GB RAM for this calculation and had plenty of RAM available for other stuff. CPU utilisation was 100% at both machines, both processes ran with standard process priority. None of the machines had to swap.

On the WinXP machine it was not possible to do anything productive during number crunching. On the slightly slower Linux machine working was slightly less responsive than without load, but still good. And by the way, my work included software like Salome, GIMP and OpenOffice where responsiveness definitely IS an issue.

When looking into desktop performance, the high-load scenario is not the typical one, on the other hand if you sometimes DO saturate your processor, having still good response is definitely a plus.

I think that everybody needs to decide on his own which behaviour is most satisfying to him.

Reply Parent Score: 2