I don't have any of the "Popular CPUs" or Windows so, I was wondering if anyone had run this benchmark on both Linux and Windows and how things like Firefox and Opera compare between the two operating systems. With a T9300/nVidia 8400M GS/Firefox 3.5, I'm able to average numbers on par with the Windows machines (2200+) but, that's with some tweaking (ok, I admit, an insane amount of tweaking) so, I'm wondering what the "out of the box" comparison is like.
Actually, Firefox on Linux SUCKS.
First of all (It comes with every distributions, but it's a problem when you want to update), FF is only packaged is this crappy Tarball (tar.gz) format. Not an auto-package (like Nvidia's drivers) not a deb (like Flash) or a RMP (Like Java), a stupid tarball, which only contain a folder which you have to figure out how to install it yourself, since there's no instructions for this!
Now, since there's only one package for every distribution in the world (And there's a lot of them!), The Fox is compiled of a generic way, without doing anything to get a better speed following the Kernel updates that will figure on your distro.
Actually, Fifefox run faster on wine than the Linux native package, or even the package that comes with your distrribution!
So...
I guess you already know who will be the winner?
That's the only sane way to distribute disto-neutral binary packages on Linux. Linux isn't Windows and so you should rely on your distro (or at least pre-built packages) to get updates for Firefox if you want to maintain a stable system. It's interesting that you mention nvidia and flash though, as those are two of the most notoriously difficult and error-prone things to install on linux. By contrast, if you choose to install a downloaded .tar.gz version of Firefox, the correct way to install/run it is:Originally Posted by qwerty800
You can do that without damaging the integrity of your Linux install.Code:tar xvf firefox*.tar.gz cd firefox* ./firefox
All distributions compile their own version of Firefox from source and linked against the distributions specific shared libraries. They may compile it with the default generic optimizations but, the very nature of distributions makes that a necessity. Also, kernel updates have little or no bearing on browser performance. The kernel settings that may play a role in browser benchmarks (i.e. Chip specific optimization, preemption level, timer Hz, default CPU frequency governor, etc) don't change on kernel updates within a given distro release.Now, since there's only one package for every distribution in the world (And there's a lot of them!), The Fox is compiled of a generic way, without doing anything to get a better speed following the Kernel updates that will figure on your distro.
No, I don't. That's specifically why I'm asking. I'm looking for an "out of the box" comparison where the only variable is the operating system because I have no way to get those numbers myself. All that you have provided is conjecture, hearsay and a fundamental lack of understand of how Linux works.Actually, Fifefox run faster on wine than the Linux native package, or even the package that comes with your distrribution!
So...
I guess you already know who will be the winner?
Sorry about that, I messed up on this part.All distributions compile their own version of Firefox from source and linked against the distributions specific shared libraries. They may compile it with the default generic optimizations but, the very nature of distributions makes that a necessity. Also, kernel updates have little or no bearing on browser performance. The kernel settings that may play a role in browser benchmarks (i.e. Chip specific optimization, preemption level, timer Hz, default CPU frequency governor, etc) don't change on kernel updates within a given distro release.
When I said Kernel optimisation, I meant Profile-Guided Optimisation[oops] (Witch is a completely different thing, I admit).
Still, that makes the Benchmark unfair, since the windows build comes with PGO, while the Linux build comes without it!
Got the latest Chrome 4 dev running fine on my 2Ghz C2D Ubuntu 9.10 (Beta) x64 laptop :-
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2141/screenshot1hv.png
Not even that buggy really, apart from the lack of being able to print etc. Kicks the absolute crap out of Firefox on Linux, and it even runs faster than Chrome on Win7 x64 on the same machine.
Got a link to a guide for installing Chrome on Linux?
Just install the dev channel .deb from here (both 32bit and 64bit versions available) :-
http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel
When the .deb installs it'll automatically add the Google repository so that it stays up to date also, Linux Chrome is still work in progress but it's surprising how good it is even now, this will kill Firefox for dead on Linux in my opinion.
Last edited by powerarmour; 10-05-2009 at 08:41 PM.
Even tho it is work in progress it is still very very nice speed.
I heard rumors that FF4.0 is double the speed of FF 3.6+.
Last edited by OrionCheung; 10-06-2009 at 12:11 AM.
It'll need to be at least to keep up with Chrome and even then Linux Chrome will take some beating, just for it's sheer interface/aesthetics.
It's a shame that Firefox on Linux has been the poor cousin of Firefox on Windows, but at least as far as I can tell so far there is complete parity in regards to speed between the Linux and Windows versions of Chrome, and as soon as the bugs are ironed out, I can't see any reasons apart from the add-ons/plugins why you'd not want to use Linux Chrome.
Linux Chrome 4 gets an easy 100/100 on Acid3 also :-
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
