Dual Core Linux Performance: Two Penguins are Better than One
by Kristopher Kubicki on July 1, 2005 5:55 AM EST- Posted in
- Linux
The Test
Testing our dual core Linux system will be done in the same manner as Anand's tests from several weeks ago. There are various test applications that are not exactly drop in compatible between Linux and Windows, but in many instances there are some extremely practical similarities in which it would make more sense to run a Linux application over the Windows alternative. For example, Apple's Shake will only run on Mac OSX or Linux - leaving Windows out in the cold.
Today's benchmarking will be a little different than Linux benchmarks we have done in the past. While we are still keeping strict usage controls and assuring that our benchmarks are 100% replicable, we are also looking more at the quality of performance rather than just the raw numbers. A fluid experience on a Linux machine that is slightly slower than a sporadic Windows alternative would be a design win for Linux - at least in our opinion. Naturally, since we have some very nice processors from Intel and AMD, we can do a slightly more traditional comparison of each of those processors against each other in the various scenarios. Using the applications list Anand set forward in his original benchmarks, we attempted to compile a list of commercial and FOSS Linux software to use for Linux.
Windows Application |
Linux Application |
Adobe® Photoshop® 7.0.1 |
The Gimp 2.3.1 |
No suggestions yet |
Apple Shake 3.5c |
Macromedia® Dreamweaver MX 6.1 |
Mozilla Composer 1.7.8 |
Microsoft® Windows MediaTM |
MPlayer 1.0pre7 |
Encoder 9 Version 9.00.00.2980 (Video) |
MEncoder 1.0pre7, CCE |
Encoder 9 Version 9.00.00.2980 (Audio) |
lame 3.96.1 |
iTunes |
XMMS 1.2.10 |
NewTek's LightWave® 3D 7.5b |
ScreamerNet 7.5b |
WinZip 8.1 |
Gzip 1.2.4 |
VC++ Compilation |
GCC 3.3.4 |
Pro/E Wildfire |
Pro/E Wildfire |
Outlook 2003 |
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.7.8 |
Microsoft Office/Word/Excel 2003 |
OpenOffice 1.1.4 |
Firefox 1.0.2 |
FireFox 1.0.4 |
Nero Burning ROM 6 |
NeroLINUX |
DVD Shrink |
DVD Backup 0.1.1, dvd::rip |
BitTorrent |
BitTorrent |
Macromedia® Director MX 9.0 |
No suggestions yet |
SteinbergTM WaveLabTM 4.0f |
No suggestions yet |
Norton AntiVirus 2004 |
No Suggestions yet |
Microsoft AntiSpyware Beta |
No Suggestions yet |
Some of the suggestions we have made above are more the subject of personal preference than absolutes. There are some loose alternatives for Shake on Windows, but there are also some loose alternatives for WaveLab and Director on Linux as well. The idea is that we want to construct a few multi-threaded benchmarks that emulate the usage of real Linux power users. Below are the seven benchmarks we have outlined our six benchmarks to use in this analysis and why we picked them. We won't be using all of the software from the list above, but the intention is that we will for future benchmarks.
- Multitasking Scenario 1: DVD Transcoding - We will rip a DVD while using moderate usage from web browsing, music and newsgroups. This is very comparable to Anand's original Windows benchmark found here.
- Multitasking Scenario 2: File Compression - We will compress some text files for backup while running a few base applications at the same time. This is also extremely comparable to Anand's original Windows benchmark found here.
- Multitasking Scenario 3: Web Browsing - Here we attempt to utilize an extremely large load of web browsers while also doing some typical background applications. This is also very similar to Anand's original benchmark.
- Multitasking Scenario 4: DVD Burning - Using the same benchmark as the DVD Ripping, we will now burn a DVD instead. Since the DVD burn is typically limited by the burn speed of the hardware, we will compress a file as our benchmark.
- Gaming Multitasking Scenario 1: Heavy Downloading - We will use several BitTorrent clients at once while benchmarking Doom 3.
- Gaming Multitasking Scenario 2: Compiling and Gaming - We will time the compilation of the Linux Kernel and GCC during a Neverwinter Nights session.
We tried to select benchmarks that were a combination of maximum load benchmarks with benchmarks that we can evaluate on quality. For example, compression and Doom3 are easy to quantify in time or FPS since they will utilize as much of the system as possible. Secondary operations like web browsing and playing music will induce load on the system and we will hopefully see really positive results on dual core configurations if the Linux scheduler is doing its job.
69 Comments
View All Comments
ProviaFan - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
On the OS and Kernel rows in the table on the Hardware page, the contents are reversed... :)blackbrrd - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
I tried putting together a Pentium D820 and an Amd 64 x2 4200+ in a norwegian webshop (cpu+motherboard+1gb ram) and they came out about equally pricedQuestar - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
Wouldn't the buffer underruns on the DVD burning tests be caused by disk contention and not CPU load?The DvD - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
Interesting review. Nice work, Kristopher.btw, shouldn't there be a j=3 graph for the 4200+ in the compiling multitasting benchmark?
Frallan - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
Interesting... AMD does not show Intel the door in this one. However it would be very interesting to se total costs of system and the 4400+ as well.Gratz Intel!
Viditor - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
I must say that this review very much surprises me! The Pentium D looks much stronger than it has in any of the other reviews...congrats to Intel on this one.Tiamat - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
The "siamese" penguin image gave me a nice laughViditor - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
I will NOT say first post!One question so far...were the default memory settings on the AMD setup 1T or 2T?
shane3in1 - Tuesday, July 12, 2011 - link
I was wondering the same thing.