Slashdot Mirror

It's obviously not meant for plebians. It's meant for the programmer who makes >$200 an hour, i.e. the time lost to compiling is worth more than this extreme high-end CPU is.

Oh please, according to OpenBenchmark you can compile the Linux 4.3 kernel in 62 seconds on an Intel Core i7-5960X. Unless you have a developer who just whacks the build button to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks - which is not the kind of person you should be paying >$200/hour - then almost any kind of employee perk or complimentary service would be more effective than 0.1 second off his compile time.

> I would be interested in knowing which is fastest at read/writes.

Ignoring the fact that this is a HIGHLY ambiguous question, i.e. you don't specify _which_ RAID setting, here are some benchmarks:

= 2010 =
http://www.zfsbuild.com/2010/0...

= 2013 =
ZFS On Linux 3.8 Kernel, ZOL 0.6.1
https://openbenchmarking.org/r...

= 2015 =
A PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF ZFS AND BTRFS ON LINUX
* https://www.diva-portal.org/sm...

on this page is a iframe (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nvidia-tegra-x1&num=2)
to https://openbenchmarking.org/e...

From what I can tell, GCC is still the better compiler. It is better supported (lots of things won't work on clang or llvm-gcc) as well. LLVM/Clang tends to compile a bit faster (which doesn't matter unless it's an order of magnitude) while the binaries that GCC produces tend to run more efficiently. There's a nice benchmark comparing GCC 4.7 to Clang 3.1 (in Apr 2012) which demonstrates this.

I'm sure LLVM has been well designed and perhaps can do better with JIT and similar concepts (which you'd have to compare to e.g. GNU Lightning), but GCC is still king. Stallman's complaint is that it's getting attention and therefore it may become better than GCC over time, which he argues would be bad for developers on the assumption that eventually a game-changing feature is released for LLVM that is nonfree and then everybody will be forced to pay for it, a fate that the GPL'd GCC cannot suffer.

Funny thing is, everyone always complained about latency and if you look at this graph you'll see Windows actually generally has higher latency than Linux these days: http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1307193-SO-WINDOWSIV40&sha=869d65c&p=2

From this article: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_ivbmesa92_win7&num=2

Sure, but did you also see this ?:

"The Windows driver also had much larger spikes in the frame latency than the Intel Linux driver."

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1311280-SO-INTELWIN869&sha=869d65c&p=2

Do you remember the days when Linux didn't perform well in this area ?

Seriously, X11 might have been bloated in 1987, but it sure as hell isn't bloated any more as evidenced by the leading benchmark scores, for example.

What example? You've been crying about benchmarks but haven't provided links to any such benchmarks. Here's one I found. X11 loses. Are you actually going to post a link to back up your claim or just keep trolling as usual?

clang never beat GCC.

Really? Let's look at some fairly recent benchmarks (from a few months ago). Looks like clang wins some, gcc wins some. The only time the difference is more than a few percent either way is in a test that uses OpenMP, which clang doesn't support at all.

Okay, disregarding the fact that Phoronix's customarily-misleading data makes it look like two separate sets of motherboards, sound cards and hard disks were used, how is this in any way a valid comparison when every single piece of userspace software between the apps and kernel they're supposed to be benchmarking is different?

So it's a benchmark on different hardware that happen to use the same nvidia card (but different motherboard and CPU), and different versions of the compiler, which are known to have performance differences. Way to go.

Looking at the posted specs its looks like the same cpu (AMD Phenom II X3 710) for all tests - on a different motherboard though - wonder why...

Give it a week. It will be on http://www.phoronix.com/ And it will be more likely to be accurate. Of course it will have real god and useful data soon at http://openbenchmarking.org/ but that is actually helpful and will not be reported by anyone.

There is a real God? With useful data.. AND His data will be accurate?
Wow...

Give it a week. It will be on http://www.phoronix.com/ And it will be more likely to be accurate. Of course it will have real god and useful data soon at http://openbenchmarking.org/ but that is actually helpful and will not be reported by anyone.