Slashdot Mirror
G5 vs. x86 and Mac OS X vs. Linux
demonbug writes "Anandtech has an article up comparing performance of dual G5s to AMD Opteron and Intel Xeon workstations. The article also takes a look at performance under Mac OS X versus Linux. It provides an interesting look at some of the strengths and weaknesses of the different CPUs." From the article: "This article is written solely from the frustration that I could not get a clear picture on what the G5 and Mac OS X are capable of. So, be warned; this is not an all-round review. It is definitely the worst buyer's guide that you can imagine. This article cares about speed, performance, and nothing else! No comments on how well designed the internals are, no elaborate discussions about user friendliness, out-of-the-box experience and other subjective subjects. But we think that you should have a decent insight to where the G5/Mac OS X combination positions itself when compared to the Intel & AMD world at the end of this article."
Comparing OS X to Linux is like comparing a brand new Lamborghini to an old Charger. Yea, they may both be fast, but only one is refined, and only a certain breed of people are going to pick the Charger over the Lambo, given the option.
:wq here and 'sudo' there just to get a damn X server running...
That's what gets me about Linux. OS X is the power of a BSD with REFINEMENT. Linux? If I have never have to use vi to set up a simple routing configuration again, it will be WAY too soon. If I can't point and click my way to a basic setup, it's not a useful system, and comparing it to something that can do that is ridiculous. I shouldn't have to 'alias' this and 'rm' that and
And, of course, like the guy in the Charger, the Linux people will extoll the limited virtues of their decision while gleefully ignoring the fact that they're still driving around in something that smells like pee.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Anyway..here's the article summary:So, forget OS X in the server room, but have fun if you want a desktop OS.
This comparison is flawed. A more direct comparison that would have resulted in better information would have been Mac/OS X vs. x86/BSD.
What performance is he measuring? The hardware or the OS? Comparing both with no baseline control for each is about as informative as pulling numbers out of my ass.
Do not taunt Happy-Fun Ball
How about OpenDarwin x86 vs. Mac OS X on Apple Hardware?
How about Linux on x86 vs. LinuxPPC on Apple Hardware?
jeesh
Agreed. Once they'd found that the kernel was crumbling when there were lots of threads, why did they not try the same tests on Linux/PPC?
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
I read through the whole comparison/review. The article points out that the main factor that MySQL is slow on OS X is how threads are handled in darwin. It's a speculation based on good observations. However, I think that the author should have done a more controlled test to prove his point, such as running yellowdog linux and OS X on identical hardware to compare MySQL performance. Instead, the mahcines that ran linux were opteron and xeon machines, which made it hard to tell whether the hardware or the kernel contributed more to the performance difference.
As some people have pointed out (but not completely), you should be comparing:
Linux forks 5 times faster than BSD, but that's been known for years. You didn't need a new benchmark/ad for that. Finally, the article doesn't have a benchmark that uses Altivec to its full potential, so it might be a hack piece as well.
"Thirdly, hardcore gamers are not the ones buying Apples, but rather, creative professionals.
So, we focus on workstation and server applications..."
How could anyone who has ever met a "creative professional" think they care about "workstation and server applications" like MySQL and Apache??
Sorry, guys, but being a sysadmin does not make you a "creative professional..."
-- Mark
Linux? If I have never have to use vi to set up a simple routing configuration again, it will be WAY too soon.
vi? Where do you *have* to use vi? Is it meant to stand for [any plaintext editor]?
Granted, editing text configs *can* be less friendly in certain situations (it can also be a lot more flexible and straightforward); but I guess invoking the name of vi (which has a reputation for being arcane) makes textual config sound more complex than it actually is.
I use and like vi in preference to Emacs (vi IMHO is less friendly on the surface, but more straightforward than Emacs once you know the basic keys). BUT.... we're discussing its reputation here, and it seems this is being exploited to make your case.
Don't like vi? Use a different editor, but don't try to rub vi's alleged arcaneness off onto text editing in general.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Sorry, but this completely invalidates any metric including the word "performance".
IBM's C compiler should be used on the Mac side (OSX now uses GCC 4.x BTW), Intels C compiler on the AMD64 side.
Do that, and try again.
Repeat after me - "GCC is crossplatform - performance sucks on all eequally".
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
That's not what I mean't.
You need threads. But you create 20 threads at the beginning (or something) and then you use those throughout the life of the application.
You can grow the number of threads dynamically to best suit your load.
But the point is, you don't create threads all the time. You pick a thread up from a thread pool.
Creating threads on Windows and Linux may be 5 times faster than on Mac OS X, but it is still a relatively slow operation. A thread pool makes sense there as well.
I'm not saying that it is OK that thread creation is slow. But creating a thread that lives for less than a second is a bad design for a server application.
Another poster stated that MySQL uses thread pools however. So that puts things in another light. If the problem wasn't because creating threads are slow, then Mac OS X had another problem.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
I'll criticize the entire article after reading it, but rigt after the first page I can tell this is a crap test badly done, here's why:
They say Macs are bought by creative profesisonnal so they will test open source solution such as MySQL and Apache!!!???
Since when those are the tools of creative pros?
They compare Xeons and Opterons to the G5, it should be Athlon64 and P4 against the G5, lets compare what target the same type of user base, else why not simply make a test that pit the G5 against a cray machine or Blue Gene?... I mean I know the Xeon isn't that powerfull and I don't have the test result but the base config is flawed in terms of comparison. Even if it wouldn't I mean Apache... common, at least pit the Gimp against the Gimp if you wanna look like you don't give the test gift-wrapped to Linux and x86, even then it would be flawed comparison since Gimp doesnt get the same amount of devellopement on G5 than on x86... and people say Photoshop benchmarking is flawed... geez at least the app truly IS optimized for both patforms...
Anyway on to the reading of the second page...
A comment can't be homophobic, only a person can.
I am not homophobic, and I see the humor in the joke you are replying to. It's called absurd humor... half the joke is in the stereotyping. Macs are stereotypically the favorite computer of gays, and Linux geeks have a strong correlation with the "dirty hippie" and "pinko commie" crowd.
So don't get your panties all in a bunch.
(I'm assuming you're either a P.C. blowhard, or a homo. See, wasn't that funny?)
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Like everyone's already said: Linux/PPC would have been a good thing to add in. Like someone else mentioned, Apache 2.x and a PostgreSQL database would have been good tests along with the MySQL+Apache 1.3 ones. I haven't seen anyone mention the gcc compiler version.(they used 3.3) 3.4 is more wholesomely made. 4.0 is the latest, woulda been interesting to see if that made any significant changes(and doesn't panther use that defaultly?) The test lacks the ability to show whether the issues in server based MacOSX are CPU based or OS based. Linux/PPC would have been helpful.
Apple actually does work on GCC and it gives patches back to the project. The way they do this was actually used as a counterexample in the recent khtml/webcore spat.
I think that a better choice on OS X Tigger would have been GCC 4 for this test, as that's what the OS is built with and it's the native compiler for the OS.. IIRC.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
The reason these tests ARE relevant is that the vast majority of users do not run Linux on their Macs, nor do they run BSD on their PCs.
The tests are pitting the common OS on each platform against each other. That is a fine comparison, because it represents the basic choice that people face when they want to choose a platform.
You just have to be careful how you interpret the results. Since neither the hardware nor the software are held in common as a "control" variable, there is no way to compare System A's software against system B's, or System A's hardware against System B's.
The best conclusion you can draw from a system level comparison like this one is that, given the test environment, System A was faster than System B overall.
And in this case, it looks like the G5-OSX combo is "System B"...
Is it this commercial you are talking about?
Yes, very extensive benchmarks. You better follow their advice.