Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:42 amPosts:
5221Has thanked: 700
timesHave thanks: 909
Post # 296275
Re: Linux vs MacOS
So if I understand correctly Linux is not as good at graphics but it's better at the rest. We kind of know that graphics support for Linux is not as good as it could be (actually that's a nicely way to say that Nvidia and ATI drivers suck).
Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:50 amPosts:
Third Stone From The SunHas thanked: 74
timesHave thanks: 73
Post # 296278
Re: Linux vs MacOS
The Phoronix test starts with the hardware:
This initial Mac OS X 10.8 benchmarking is being done from a mid-2011 Apple Mac Mini with an Intel Core i5 2415M CPU, Sandy Bridge (GT2+ / HD 3000) graphics, and 2GB of RAM. The Mac OS X 10.8 build being used was 12A128p with the Darwin 12.0.0 x86_64 kernel, and a Journaled HFS+ file-system.
So the graphics are Intel only on this MAC mini. Seems to me that the hardware folks at apple have now done away with the troublesome Intel graphics system.
From the Apple Store:
The 2.5GHz Mac mini features a discrete AMD Radeon HD graphics processor with 256MB of GDDR5 memory. That brings up to twice the power to graphics-intensive applications and gives you a super-responsive gaming experience.2 The Intel HD Graphics processor in the 2.3GHz Mac mini delivers plenty of power for everyday tasks like managing photos and editing HD video.
2. Testing conducted by Apple in June 2011 using preproduction 2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5–based Mac mini units with AMD Radeon HD 6630M and shipping 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo–based Mac mini units with NVIDIA GeForce 320M. All systems were configured with 4GB RAM. Portal v(4295)(400) tested using mydemo1.dem, maximum graphics quality, 4x anti-aliasing, 16x anisotropic filtering, at 1920x1080. Portal 2 v(4581)(620) tested using LaserStairs.dem, maximum graphics quality, no anti-aliasing, 16x anisotropic filtering, at 1920x1080. Half-Life 2: Episode Two v(4295)(420) tested using storm.dem, maximum graphics quality, 2x anti-aliasing, 4x anisotropic filtering, at 1920x1080. StarCraft II v184.108.40.20601 tested using EVORekatan(Z) vs TropicalBob(Z) 33M Master ZVZ replay, medium graphics quality, at 1920x1080. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of Mac mini.
For a couple of years, the base Apple system came with a Nividia Geforce video chip. The higher level ones, one could pick ether a Geforce or ATI video chip to use. Now the latest models come with ATI video chips. So this test is mute. Yes,
when Apple first started using Intel again, the system choice was all Intel, I have one, it is no speed demon.
The end result for the Phoronix test says:
Apple seems to have an advantage at the moment when it comes to the OpenGL performance and their in-house graphics stack for the Intel Sandy Bridge hardware. However, on the Linux side there still are some performance improvements coming via the RC6 enabling by default and various other optimizations that Intel OTC developers have planned. In other areas, the computational performance is close for some workloads between Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and Mac OS X 10.8 while in a number of cases the penguin OS jumps higher. Stay tuned for more extensive testing to come when Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and Mac OS X 10.8 are both formally released.
I will say that Ubuntu does so far, have the best support to run thier OS on an Apple machine in the Linux world.
Research, Research, Research, Before You Walk The Plank.
Registered Linux User # 398829