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 363243
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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


Woah, hang on - it has nothing to do with efficiency of memory; this was running ArchLinux whose total memory foot print was less than Windows XP - so it has nothing to do with the memory consumed. What it has to do with is the algorithms that are used to balance processes/threads to ensure that the end user gets a responsive system.

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.


Pardon? nothing is slow to me; maybe it takes a second to load up the window to display the contents of the drive, or it takes a couple of seconds for an application to load by clicking on the dock but what I am talking about is smoothness when running 3-4-5-6 applications at the same time. For me, I couldn't care less about the speed of one application all by its lonesome self; what I am talking about is a system under a reasonable load and getting some decent responsiveness from it.

Edited 2009-05-13 06:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23


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.


I haven't seen that kind of performance since version 10.4.x, even when it's short on available real memory, though I've had stuttering from the virtual memory system when an application tries to implement its own system.

The graphics card has a lot to do with it, though, since OpenGL is used in many places. The early Intel-based machines with the early Intel graphics chipset lagged a lot but then, they weren't able to access 226 MB of shared RAM in Mac OS X the way that they could under Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

DavidSan Member since:
2008-11-18

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 have experience the same. However, Mac OS X under the same circumstances is even more responsive than Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 1