If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rating: | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Intel Iris 5100, Ubuntu 14.04 vs. Windows 8.1
What? Windows wins? Again?
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...winlin&n um=1 -- Silver Slimer Wikipedia & OpenMedia Supporter GNU/Linux advocates: http://abstrusegoose.com/558 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Intel Iris 5100, Ubuntu 14.04 vs. Windows 8.1
Silver Slimer wrote:
What? Windows wins? Again? http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...winlin&n um=1 Let's try another page for a second. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag..._win81&nu m=3 In that example they compa Ubuntu Open Source = Nouveau driver (so-called "untainted", written without NDA info) Ubuntu Closed Source = Driver written by NVidia staff for Linux Windows 8.1 = Driver written by NVidia staff for Windows You'll notice in the top chart, the frame rate results are the same for Ubuntu Closed Source and Windows 8.1 (both drivers written by NVidia). ******* Now, let's go back and address the article you picked out. I don't recollect Intel making drivers for both Windows and Linux. (I don't think they do a binary blob for Linux, but I could be wrong. It's not something I would even particularly care about, because who would "game with Intel hardware" ? ) When I see mention of MESA, that's an emulation of OpenGL done in software. It's tons slower than calling OpenGL the likes of which is in the Nvidia closed source (binary blob) driver. At least, that's what MESA was in the past. I haven't exactly been tracking progress on MESA. A software emulation is always going to be slower than one that actually uses the shaders and the like. Your choice of Intel hardware as a means of comparing the OSes, wasn't the best you could have done. Select an article with NVidia or ATI/AMD GPU, and we'll talk. You can see in the forum comments on the Phoronix site, the forum people would prefer to see other benchmarks. There's certain a lot of room for cherry-picking results, if a person is dishonest. Such benchmarks have to be done with a great deal of care. To the point that I wouldn't trust most of them, unless I did them myself on my own hardware. http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...IA-Windows-8-1 ******* If you want an example of gross dishonesty, take the travesty of an article on Tomshardware. I was using my search engine, looking for a Windows 7 versus Windows 8 gaming comparison. I wanted to see, if Tomshardware was able to reproduce my test result, where I was noticing a frame rate drop on a game in Windows 8. So I go to the site, and the idiots do their test with an LGA2011 6C 12T processor running overclocked at 4GHz. In other words, they used as much CPU horsepower as they could muster, thereby hiding any possible difference between the two OSes. Such incompetence. No wonder the frame rates were the same. There are some more thoughtful sites on the web, like Xbitlabs or IXBT. If they were to do such a comparison, they'd do a run with a 6 core machine and also do a run with a 2 core machine, and then note the differences seen between the two. And at least show they were making an effort. So yeah, I love benchmarks, but there aren't too many of them that are shining examples of objectivity. In your quoted article, I would at least want some expansion on whether the word MESA, means MESA software emulated OpenGL calls, versus the kind of OpenGL support that would be put in a native NVidia or native ATI driver. I wouldn't buy an Intel-only platform, with the plan of having stellar graphics frame rates. It's like complaining that two cripples don't run very fast, and one cripple is slightly faster than the other. A gimp race. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|