Slashdot Mirror
Wine vs Windows Benchmarks
PeterBrett writes "Tom Wickline recently posted to the Wine development list announcing that he'd done some benchmarks comparing Windows XP to Wine. They should be taken with the requisite dose of salt, but Wine has certainly come a long way."
Speaking as someone who used to be a Wine-hater, Wine has definitely come a long way. My impression of Wine for years was that it a) was impossible to install and configure, b) didn't run anything other than solitaire, and c) caused major instability to desktops.
Then I tried Codeweavers' "Crossover Office," essentially a pre-configured Wine with graphical configuration and installation tools, and everything changed. I currently use all of the following under Fedora Core 4:
- Microsoft Office XP
- Wordperfect 12 (word processor only)
- Photoshop 6
- Framemaker 7
They all installed using the standard CD install, without my having to jump through any crazy hoops or type a single command, and they all run flawlessly and are great for serious work. They sit right in my KDE menu like all other applications and it's a real head-turner to be able to show up to work with my laptop running Linux and then pop into Word XP and Framemaker.
Wine works incredibly well after all, it's just more "raw material" than "finished product." Get someone to write a user-friendly front end for it (ala Codeweavers' Crossover Office) and it offers a very high level of Windows compatibility to Linux users.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Anyone else notice the funny stuff going on with the statistics? All the statistics are reported as percentages of the XP value, with higher = better. That means that if wine is "+ 90%", it's performing less than twice as fast as XP. But if it's "- 90%", XP is performing ten times faster!
So whatever this is measuring (and I concur that it seems to be mostly Linux graphics drivers), it's not reporting the results particularly well.
Well, my experience with Wine/Cedega has been that for the games and applications that work, the disk-access tends to be faster. Not necessarily because the actual disk is being accessed faster, but because the filesystem (in my case reiserfs) is speedier to read.
The other wonderful thing I've found about Wine is the graphics abstraction layer. My laptop has a GeForce FX5600 (mobile) card in it. It's actually rather spiffy for most games still, but sucked ass at Battlefield 2 in windows, popping up the warning that my graphics drivers were out of date. Well, it seems that the drivers are tied to the laptop in windows to co-habitate with the power-saving etc etc... so I couldn't update from the official NVidia ones. And of course, my laptop vendor doesn't offer updates for anything over a year old it seems.
In linux, however, the normal NVidia accelerated driver works. The game runs on that faster than in windows, and with better detail levels. I don't know if it's just that the Cedega HAL does a better emulation for the software bits, or if it's due to the more-up-to-date driver, but it's a much less painful experience in Linux.
Lastly, my soundcard. SB Live 5.1. Abit dated, but with livedrive still a very nice functional card, except that the windows drivers will eventually/randomly freeze in most directX intensive games. Running in linux... no problemo. That's actually why I switched to Cedega/Debian almost completely (too many losses in Warcraft from lockups).
Read the article. These aren't dev-created benchmarks, but standard benchmark suites like 3DMark and Quake 3.
Some of the tests look really weird. For instance, in the 3DMark2000 Fill Rate test, Single Texture on Wine gets 2,402.8 MTexels/s and 11% behind Windows, but on the Multi-Texture test it soars to 6,695.1 MTexels/s and 74.5% in front of Windows. There's got to be some freaky driver code or something implemented oddly or some background process that wasn't noticed.
I don't think these benchmarks were run rigoriously enough to say anything, except that Wine is capable of running 3DMark.
Not a typewriter