Test System Specs And Setup
64-bit Desktop Test System
|64-bit Desktop Test System Specs|
|Operating System 1||Fedora 16 'Verne'|
|Operating System 2||Ubuntu 11.10 'Oneiric Ocelot'|
|Operating System 3||Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate|
|Processor||Intel Core i5-750 @ 2.88 GHz (quad-core)|
|Motherboard||Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD7 (F7 BIOS)|
|Memory||8 GB Crucial DDR3 @ 1333 MT/s (2 x 4 GB)|
|Graphics 1||AMD Radeon HD 4870 Reference Board 512 MB GDDR5 (PCIe 2.0)|
|Graphics 2||EVGA GeForce GTX 260 896 MB GDDR5 (PCIe 2.0)|
|Storage||Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500 GB SATA 3Gb/s, 7200 RPM, 16 MB Cache|
|Power Supply||Corsair TX750W (750 W max)|
|Chassis||Zalman MS-1000 HS2|
|CPU Cooler||Scythe Mugen 2 Revision B|
|Keyboard||Logitech Wireless Keyboard K320|
|Mouse||Logitech Cordless TrackMan Wheel|
32-bit Mobile System
|32-bit Mobile Test System|
|Operating System||Fedora 16 'Verne'|
|Model||Dell Inspiron Mini 10v (1st generation)|
|Processor||Intel Atom N270 @ 1.6 GHz|
|Memory||1 GB DDR2-533|
|Graphics||Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950|
|Storage||120 GB 2.5-inch 5400 RPM SATA HDD|
All of the Fedora 16 benchmarks were run on a newly installed and freshly updated system as of midnight February 29th. Some of the Ubuntu 11.10 and Windows 7 scores were retained from Ubuntu 11.10 Review: Benchmarked Against Windows 7. However, due to several benchmarks being updated in the month since the Ubuntu article, the Raw Therapee, HandBrake, LAME, Blender, GeekBench, and Unigine Heaven scores are fresh. The table below lists the 23 benchmarks currently in our Linux/Windows XPlat (cross-platform) suite:
X-Plat Benchmark Suite v1.0
|Start & Stop Times||Boot, Shut Down, Hibernate, and Wake|
|File Copy Times||HDD to HDD, HDD to USB, and USB to HDD|
|Archiving||Zip, Un-zip, Tar.gz, and Un-Tar.gz|
|Multimedia||HandBrake, LAME, and RawTherapee|
|System||GeekBench, POV-Ray, and Blender|
|Unigine||Sanctuary, Tropics, and Heaven|
|Games||Doom 3, Prey, and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars|
Current page: Test System Specs And SetupPrev Page Mimicking GNOME 2 Next Page Benchmark Results: Start And Stop Times
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
I think the akmod graphics drivers (also found in the rpmfusion repository) would be better than simply the proprietary drivers because they also work after kernel updates.Reply
I'm really disappointed with the direction Linux has taken in its user interfaces. I was a big fan of Ubuntu until they switched to Unity, and since then I've been jumping from distro-to-distro trying to find a desktop environment that feels comfortable, isn't terribly difficult to wrap my head around, and that is still powerful. I was using GNOME3 for a while with Linux Mint, but even with the heavy extensions, there are certain functions that I can't quite replicate from the GNOME2 heyday. I wasn't able to get into KDE or XFCE either. They feel aged and aren't quite as sleek as other modern desktop environments, even if you try to fix that by adding customs skins.Reply
In the end, I'm downgrading to a much older distro of Ubuntu, and supplementing it with Windows 7. I'll be keeping an eye in the coming years to see how these rusty GUI releases turn out-- hopefully for the better. But for now, linux has lost a lot of its useability and it's flare. I'll miss the days when upgrading to a newer distro actually felt like an upgrade, but maybe after all these mistakes, developers will learn and make Linux exciting again. I'll be waiting to see.
Good grief. What I wouldn't have done years ago for a job that would ask me to write a review on something that would obsolete itself in six months.Reply
Nobody, IMHO, who actually uses a computer for anything of value wastes their time with Fedora. You can't upgrade it, so your own personal enhancements and bug fixes are lost. Features you like are abandoned for broken replacements. Fedora is a nightmare and has been since it began. I began the adventure years ago with Red Hat 5 and finally gave up and moved to more useful distros after Fedora 8. Fedora is now for the masochistic.
On the other hand, if you like superficiality, as in wallpaper and clock positions, and enjoy the animated struggle that comes with installing something new all the time and reporting bugs then Fedora is a good thing.
one thing which i would have liked to see on the comparesion would be open time of a Libre Word Processing file, close time of that file, open time of a database file, close time of it, open time of Firefox, close time of Firefox, open time of a typical website like this one, close time of it, install time of the OS, how fast does it run a batch file or equivalent in the OS, and etc. like that things which we actually do a lot besides gaming.Reply
It also seemed like they had a basis towards the GUI way of doing things and thought all users had forsaken CLI scripting for their installs and updates. as if you are getting Fedora you most likely know it was command line based in the start and really is still easier to do everything from command line then from any other route well Ubuntu is made with the GUI interface in mind so things are easier to do with that then with command line mainly because they hid the terminal screen in the newer versions of it.Reply
With that Fedora is also made for workstations and Ubuntu made for end user support 2 differnet applications so why only show benchmarks of end user things and not anything on network support, domain support, VM thin client viability, accessing files from the network, etc. like that things which Fedora is good at not just things which Ubuntu is I think this article was basised and another should be made with more benchmarks to not be as basised towards one or the other.
One of these days, developers of GUIs will realise going "forward" doesn't equate to an increase of ease of use and functionality.Reply
Unity, Metro, GNOME 3, Etc.
Alas, I must suffer each day for the Wacom preferences panel in GNOME settings. Ties me to GNOME 3 (or a derivative). How silly.
Now I'm waiting for them to do a Solaris 10 or 11 review. Their both available on x86 so they don't even need to purchase new hardware. Come on it's a "real mans" OS.Reply
You've completely missed extensions.gnome.org and gnome-tweak-tool, and as a result your review is not an accurate reflection of gnome-shell. Gnome-tweak-tool gives things like "Have file manager handle the desktop" and "Trash icon visible on desktop", plus shell, window, and gtk theme selection, font configuration, and gnome-shell extension management. Extensions.gnome.org provides, well, gnome-shell extensions. Things like "Static Workspaces", which gives you a fixed number of workspaces. Or "Alternative Status Menu", which puts power, reboot, suspend, and hibernate on your status menu. Or "Applications Menu", which provides a Gnome2-like list of windows on the current workspace.Reply
Now, I admit that neither of these configuration options are immediately visible to a new user. Despite that, your review is bad, and you should feel bad.
graph for POV-Ray is wrong, you said both of linux finished 4min before windows yet the graph show the other way around.Reply
Cowardly AnonYou've completely missed extensions.gnome.org and gnome-tweak-tool, and as a result your review is not an accurate reflection of gnome-shell. Gnome-tweak-tool gives things like "Have file manager handle the desktop" and "Trash icon visible on desktop", plus shell, window, and gtk theme selection, font configuration, and gnome-shell extension management. Extensions.gnome.org provides, well, gnome-shell extensions. Things like "Static Workspaces", which gives you a fixed number of workspaces. Or "Alternative Status Menu", which puts power, reboot, suspend, and hibernate on your status menu. Or "Applications Menu", which provides a Gnome2-like list of windows on the current workspace.Now, I admit that neither of these configuration options are immediately visible to a new user. Despite that, your review is bad, and you should feel bad.See pages 12 through 16.Reply