PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu 64 2x faster than XP32?


Zoogie
04-29-2008, 02:24 PM
I posted this on Blenderartists, but for those here who may not see that post.

http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1105682#post1105682

XP(32)---Benchmark Results, Screen Size 1440 x 881

Overall Score (FPS)
gl : 15.1005 fps
render : 12.22 sec

Spin wireframe view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 59.7200 fps
Spin solid view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 29.9781 fps
Spin solid view, 1000 monkes : 7.4738 fps
Spin wire view, 1000 monkes : 11.9713 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 256x256 px : 115.0395 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 512x512 px : 79.4178 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 1024x1024 px : 20.5978 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 2048x2048 px : 5.1945 fps
Raytracing with AO and area light, 8 threads : 9.82 sec
Shadowbuffer light, 2 threads : 14.62 sec


Ubuntu 8.04(64)---Benchmark Results, Screen Size 1440 x 900

Overall Score (FPS)
gl : 38.8972 fps
render : 6.91 sec

Spin wireframe view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 118.5103 fps
Spin solid view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 60.6972 fps
Spin solid view, 1000 monkes : 12.4682 fps
Spin wire view, 1000 monkes : 29.0255 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 256x256 px : 1404.5153 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 512x512 px : 374.1240 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 1024x1024 px : 83.9081 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 2048x2048 px : 19.6859 fps
Raytracing with AO and area light, 8 threads : 4.48 sec
Shadowbuffer light, 2 threads : 9.35 sec

Apollux
05-04-2008, 03:46 PM
Linux been faster than Windows... where is the news there? AFAIK it has always been the case :D

LetterRip
05-04-2008, 08:33 PM
The opengl tests being faster is a bit of a surprise, do you have details on which driver is being used for each test?

LetterRip

Zoogie
05-05-2008, 01:00 AM
The driver version on XP is 6.14.11.5665.
Its a geforce 8600m gt (on a laptop). So I havent updated it. (it was a hassle to find updates for my previous laptop, so I havent looked into updating this one yet.)
I am not sure how to determine what the version number is on ubuntu . I still dont know a whole lot about linux.

@ Apollux: This wasnt really meant to be a newsflash. I have heard linux is faster before, but I havent seen any real numbers on the same computer. I had no idea that rather than update my hardware , which is always good, I could update my OS. I was just really surprised that the same hardware could give me such a boost in performance.
This thread is more for those who havent seen any numbers related to blender.

Michael-Williamson
05-05-2008, 10:47 AM
How do you actually do the benchmarking?

I've noticed blender to be way better in performance in opengl and rendering in Ubuntu 64bit again vs 32bit xp pro, but wouldn't mind benchmarking my system (I have dual boot also)

PS if you have the nvidia settings panel installed (type nvidia-settings from a terminal to launch, the driver version can be found in Xserver information. (I think the panel will work regardless of whether you youse the free or non free nvidia drivers.

if not installed type sudo apt-get install nvidia-settings from a terminal or search for it in synaptic.

There's probably other ways to find out, but that's how I do it.

Zoogie
05-05-2008, 12:02 PM
Thanks Michael-Williamson for the tip.
I want to learn to get comfortable with Ubuntu, so I really appreciate such useful tips.

I installed nvidia-settings and the driver version is 169.12

You can find the benchmark file I used here.

http://peach.blender.org/wp-content/uploads/movies/benchmark.blend

Michael-Williamson
05-05-2008, 12:38 PM
Overall, twice the performance in open gl on ubuntu compared to windows!...
#(on my dual boot laptop with nvidia GeForceGo 7950 GTX).

I had a twinview setup running for both at 1920 *1200 + 1280 * 1024



Linux:
non free nvidia driver 169.12
Benchmark Results, Screen Size 1919 x 1172

Overall Score (FPS)
gl : 36.0351 fps
render : 8.03 sec

Spin wireframe view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 88.6600 fps
Spin solid view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 53.5829 fps
Spin solid view, 1000 monkes : 12.3121 fps
Spin wire view, 1000 monkes : 23.2562 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 256x256 px : 1370.6428 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 512x512 px : 363.8867 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 1024x1024 px : 80.9919 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 2048x2048 px : 19.2236 fps
Raytracing with AO and area light, 4 threads : 6.42 sec
Shadowbuffer light, 1 threads : 9.65 sec#



Windows:
Nvidia driver 8.4.6.9
Benchmark Results, Screen Size 1920 x 1174

Overall Score (FPS)
gl : 15.5147 fps
render : 11.43 sec

Spin wireframe view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 58.6851 fps
Spin solid view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 31.3496 fps
Spin solid view, 1000 monkes : 8.4873 fps
Spin wire view, 1000 monkes : 11.9073 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 256x256 px : 90.9423 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 512x512 px : 80.1575 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 1024x1024 px : 20.4708 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 2048x2048 px : 5.1928 fps
Raytracing with AO and area light, 4 threads : 8.98 sec
Shadowbuffer light, 4 threads : 13.88 sec


Interesting...maybe I'll look for a better windows driver!
_______________________________________________________________________
EDIT: Changed to the latest nvidia forceware driver 167.51
________________________________________________________________________
Hardly any change to the windows benchmark, some things worse, some better

Benchmark Results, Screen Size 1920 x 1174

Overall Score (FPS)
gl : 15.5536 fps
render : 11.54 sec

Spin wireframe view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 59.8384 fps
Spin solid view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 29.9501 fps
Spin solid view, 1000 monkes : 7.7590 fps
Spin wire view, 1000 monkes : 11.1740 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 256x256 px : 212.1476 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 512x512 px : 85.7826 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 1024x1024 px : 21.6705 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 2048x2048 px : 5.4539 fps
Raytracing with AO and area light, 8 threads : 9.11 sec
Shadowbuffer light, 4 threads : 13.97 sec....

antimatter289
05-05-2008, 03:23 PM
WinXP Pro 32b
Asus Geforce 8500GT 512MB (169.21)
core2quad q6600 @ 2.85/core
2 gb ram. (PC2-4200 @ 395mhz)
2x20" widescreens (Dualview)
I don't have linux installed on this machine, but I know it'd be faster.

busy system with BOINC grid computing in background at low priority:
Benchmark Results, Screen Size 3360 x 989

Overall Score (FPS)
gl : 8.9152 fps
render : 4.82 sec

Spin wireframe view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 25.6538 fps
Spin solid view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 13.4299 fps
Spin solid view, 1000 monkes : 3.0700 fps
Spin wire view, 1000 monkes : 6.3393 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 256x256 px : 138.6109 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 512x512 px : 67.1592 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 1024x1024 px : 16.1225 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 2048x2048 px : 4.6234 fps
Raytracing with AO and area light, 1 threads : 3.59 sec
Shadowbuffer light, 8 threads : 6.05 sec

Boinc off:
Benchmark Results, Screen Size 3360 x 989

Overall Score (FPS)
gl : 9.8520 fps
render : 4.61 sec

Spin wireframe view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 24.7801 fps
Spin solid view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 12.8047 fps
Spin solid view, 1000 monkes : 3.2012 fps
Spin wire view, 1000 monkes : 6.3406 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 256x256 px : 386.2262 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 512x512 px : 98.1872 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 1024x1024 px : 24.1776 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 2048x2048 px : 5.9052 fps
Raytracing with AO and area light, 8 threads : 3.54 sec
Shadowbuffer light, 8 threads : 5.67 sec
Only using one screen (boinc off):
Benchmark Results, Screen Size 1680 x 964

Overall Score (FPS)
gl : 19.9354 fps
render : 4.51 sec

Spin wireframe view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 59.7632 fps
Spin solid view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 29.9643 fps
Spin solid view, 1000 monkes : 10.7407 fps
Spin wire view, 1000 monkes : 23.0392 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 256x256 px : 382.6920 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 512x512 px : 103.6920 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 1024x1024 px : 24.6884 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 2048x2048 px : 6.1759 fps
Raytracing with AO and area light, 1 threads : 3.48 sec
Shadowbuffer light, 1 threads : 5.54 sec


Not sure why some post as 1 thread, some as 8, when clearly the numbers hint that the same number of threads are in use each time.

innactpro
05-10-2008, 08:03 AM
I dual boot xp and Xubuntu. I haven't done a bench mark test, instead I rendered a project I'm working on in both. xp rendered in 6 min 46 sec, Xubuntu 8 min 45 sec. This surprised me due to Xubuntu being thin client and all. I just use the standard Blender release and this is all 32 bit so I'm a bit of topic. Maybe some one could have a suggestion. I would like to go full Xubuntu but this kind of puts me on hold for that.

anderber
05-10-2008, 10:20 PM
It could be something to do with the drivers you have in Xubuntu.

Nichod
05-10-2008, 10:56 PM
It could be something to do with the drivers you have in Xubuntu.

Um. Drivers would have little to do with rendering. Unless you are referring to something else.

Its likely you need to optimize the Linux version of Blender.

innactpro
05-11-2008, 12:37 AM
It could be something to do with the drivers you have in Xubuntu.I've read a few places updated drivers can help improve performance. But I bought my computer long before I knew anything about Linux or open source and have an ATI card and drivers are problematic. Though the latest Xubuntu version seems better with the ATI card. I'm supposing the same would be true for Ubuntu.

Its likely you need to optimize the Linux version of Blender.I looked into the whole optimized thing last night, and was just a little lost. I've been doing 3D for a few years and using Blender for about a year, but I don't compile, or optimize, or code. I'm pretty much a user. I know a bit more that the average user, though little more. I really don't think I know enough yet for all of that. While looking into the optimized versions, and all the comments about building your own, some one wrote that it's not for noobs. I know what compile means and what a compiler is, but I don't know what scons is, and no need to explain as I can look it up, nor do I know how to optimize anything. I suppose I am a typical windows user and just like for things to work, blind to what's going on in the back end. I wouldn't mind learning, I just don't have the time right now.

As far as optimized builds, which is right for me? I searched grphicall and blenderbuilds but the descriptions are rather jargon laced and noobs like myself may feel a bit lost. I know I do. I can't tell which would be optimal for my machine. The OS part is obvious, usually.

Well, it's not that big of a deal for me. I would just like to understand it better, eventually.

fktt
05-11-2008, 10:54 AM
As far as optimized builds, which is right for me? I searched grphicall and blenderbuilds but the descriptions are rather jargon laced and noobs like myself may feel a bit lost. I know I do. I can't tell which would be optimal for my machine. The OS part is obvious, usually.


What cpu do you have, and what extentions dose it have,
for an example i have AMD Athlon xp 2500+ Barton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Athlon_XP_microprocessors#Athlon_XP_.22Barton.22_.28Model_10.2C_130_nm.29)(mainstream, should be).
That means i have MMX, SSE, Enhanced 3D now!

So i could build blender with those compiler options, if the comiler supports them,
or downlaod a suited version from graphicall.org :)

innactpro
05-11-2008, 11:16 AM
It's an old P4 2.8GHz. Don't laugh, it's paid for.

I suppose if I had been smart enough, I could have searched for my processor's info and determined the best build from that?

fktt
05-11-2008, 03:33 PM
I suppose I could have searched for my processor's info and determined the best build from that?

essentially yeah. :)

you should have at least MMX, SSE and SSE2.
if you have Hyper-Threading thats a useful thing to have too. :)

DigitalBlaspheme
05-11-2008, 03:57 PM
Those are some pretty nice numbers there. There are some things that concern me. You took a 64 bit system and compared it to a 32 bit system. Even if it was the same OS you tested in both cases the 64 bit system would perform noticeably better. The other thing that concerns me-benchmarking OpenGL in a windows environment is like shooting yourself in the foot. Microsoft NEVER has (nor will they ever in the future) allow any program to out perform one of its "similiar" programs (DirectX) in its own environment. The last thing that worries me is you may be putting alot of wieght behind these numbers, and granted yes they are pretty nice, however after 70fps your wasting computation cycles as your eye will NEVER be able to physically make use of anything more than 60-70fps.....its a built in limitation....blame god. Put those waisted cycles to use for something that would do you good.

LetterRip
05-11-2008, 04:13 PM
the FPS numbers are important since the higher your FPS score on this test, in general the better performance you will have when you bog down the GPU with a lot of geometry and textures. It is why quake FPS is still a good benchmark.

The opengl performance is due to driver quality and is not impacted by MS - this is a test on XP, not Vista.

64 bit windows does not give a performance boost for most users. The improved 64 bit for linux is that the 32 bit linux is optimized for 32bit architectures, and the 64 bit is optimized for 64 bit architecures, in particular it makes use of the extra CPU registers and can double the speed of some computations due to greater data bandwidth.

LetterRip

Zoogie
05-11-2008, 04:51 PM
@DigitalBlashpheme : I couldn't have said that better than LetterRip.
While I understand your point, you are considering scenes where you do not test the system beyond its capabilities. If I have to work on a very poly heavy scene, I would rather be working on the Ubuntu side.
ie if I had a scene that brought my windows boot to say 10fps and the linux side of the same machine gave me 20fps ,I'd be able to make better judgement on the final feel of the animation . Certainly I'd be more productive using the linux side.

So while this is more of a subjective benchmark . It makes a lot of sense to use Ububtu(at least for blender) for my particular configuration. I see it as a free upgrade to double the processor and graphics, without buying any additional hardware. And it indeed does feel smoother, and when I do those multitude test renders the time savings add up.

DigitalBlaspheme
05-12-2008, 12:13 AM
edited-needless post, one of you said the same thing I did in other words and thought that just because this is a test on xp and not vista that my words about opengl and the issues it has on a windows machine were pointless, and the other missed the point.

But I'll post my benches with the file provided just for reference to the possible diffs between 64 bit windows and 32 bit windows. I tried my hardest to match the specs you provided with the system I have, I've even restored all stock clocks. I did not, however, lower my resolution as it would make no difference to me as I'll be <A href="http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=539" target=_blank>turning my 8800 back into a quadro (http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=539</a>) (I suggest you try it since you're worried about fps, it will help marginally with fps and it will lower you're render times) and i'll be clocking everything back up anyway.


Benchmark Results, Screen Size 1920 x 1175
Overall Score (FPS)
gl : 13.4820 fps
render : 6.24 sec
Spin wireframe view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 50.5573 fps
Spin solid view, subsurf monkey, 4 subsurf levels : 29.9787 fps
Spin solid view, 1000 monkes : 5.8267 fps
Spin wire view, 1000 monkes : 8.5994 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 256x256 px : 287.3157 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 512x512 px : 75.1646 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 1024x1024 px : 20.3860 fps
OpenGL image load & free, 2048x2048 px : 5.3620 fps
Raytracing with AO and area light, 8 threads : 5.07 sec
Shadowbuffer light, 2 threads : 7.41 sec

Michael-Williamson
05-12-2008, 05:11 AM
edited-needless post, one of you said the same thing I did in other words and thought that just because this is a test on xp and not vista that my words about opengl and the issues it has on a windows machine were pointless, and the other missed the point.


Not sure what the point is, it's not like you can run blender without opengl and use directX instead... and aren't the issues with opengl on vista much worse by microsoft design?

DigitalBlaspheme
05-14-2008, 12:47 AM
Not sure what the point is....... and aren't the issues with opengl on vista much worse by microsoft design?For someone who's not sure what the point was, you got it pretty quick. Care trying to explain it to rip? OH, for clarification, it's not just vista, xp suffers from this dirty business as well. (I edited out the part that I really wasn't sure about....not to sure what point you were trying to make but you were correct with your statement.

RogerWickes
05-27-2008, 01:41 AM
We have a standardardized benchmark for Blender at http://www.eofw.org/bench/ - please use that test .blend file and report your numbers to that database. It is the only way you can be sure you are comparing your Linux numbers against other OS/machines. Thanks.

Michael-Williamson
05-27-2008, 02:10 AM
Ok, will try when I get a chance.
The chart is pretty hard to compare anything with anything though as it's hard to see the dual boots to compare identical hardware running different OS .

Also that benchmark is less complete than ideasmans as it's just render times. For me Open Gl is just as/maybe more important to me as I work with large data sets often... rendering I can do on a network...

For me we have been comparing apples with apples anyway as I don't have any 64 bit windows. it is runnning what I have on a dual boot so therefore the same "apple" if you will.

CGTalk Moderation
05-27-2008, 02:10 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.