Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Java Performance On Ubuntu Vs. Windows Vista

Posted by kdawson on from the steaming-cuppa dept.

Henckle writes "Phoronix did a comparison of the Java performance between Ubuntu and Windows Vista. They tested both Java and OpenJDK on Ubuntu 8.10 and Java on Windows Vista Premium SP1, all with stock configurations. To no-one's surprise, Ubuntu was faster in a majority of the tests. The two OSs were similar in ray-tracing, and Vista was faster at Java OpenGL due to shortcomings with the Linux graphics driver."

6 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. always trust phronix to mess a benchmark up by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they used java 1.6.0_10 on linux and 1.6.0_07 on windows. Hate to give the benefit of the doubt to ballmer & co but in spite of the minor version number, a lot of work in performance has been done on Java recently. The result is pretty meaningless.

  2. Re:Ray tracing in Java by Yetihehe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes. Sunflow is one example. I did my own tests, java vs c++ (almoste the same code) and java was only about 1.3 times slower.

    --
    Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
  3. Re:3D in Java? by Nicopa · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think you should check the Java port of Quake then: http://bytonic.de/html/jake2.html

  4. I was surprised by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To no-one's surprise, Ubuntu was faster

    I'm surprised.

    I'd expect Java to go faster in windows. I don't think the reasons for using Linux are speed and software availability. I'd expect much more attention is paid to the windows versions.

    --
    Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
  5. Re:Fairness by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Insightful


    I love the way in every test test Vista loses it's "Ubuntu is faster" but in the test where Vista wins, they explain and excuse it going "bad opengl drivers".

    Maybe that's because Ubuntu is an open source application where we actually know why the test gave bad performance, and actually know that it's going to improve in the future?

    Who's to say the Vista performance gap wasn't caused by bad drivers?

    Don't dismiss the advantages of an open system where you can actually understand what's under the hood as just "test bias".

    --
    AccountKiller
  6. Re:Interesting, but lacking some crucial details.. by chrb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Various problems with the Phoronix test methodology have been noted before and before that. Without going over the same stuff, here are some potential questions about this benchmarking:

    • Where is the statistical analysis of these results - ok, you ran a test once and it was 30% slower. Is this reproducible? What is the variance? Is there any statistical difference between openjdk/sun java?
    • Why is the Java minor version different? Do you see the same results if the same minor version is used?
    • As mentioned in the previous discussions, exactly why is Windows slower on the file encryption task - it should be either limited by disk throughput, or by CPU throughput, so observing a 40% drop in performance attributed to the underlying I/O handling of the operating system is somewhat surprising; are you sure the test methodology is sound here, and if so, how do you explain the results?
    • Are these results applicable to both 32 and 64 bit distributions and JDKs?
    • How do you know that the 2D benchmark performance on Linux is attributable to poor graphics drivers? Why not run the test on another PC and then swap out graphics cards (hence eliminating all other factors) and report on the results?

    There are a lot of questions that this benchmarking should have answered, and a lot of assumptions made that could potentially be invalid.