3 ms·
Ubuntu and Arch not that different with regard to performance
- theamk 5y agoDuh, it is like saying “Kayak and Expedia are not that different with regard of quality of flights”. Yes, the interface is different, and there may be some things missing, but the actual things that get work done (flights | linux kernel/open source apps) are designed everywhere and in most cases would be the same between all (flight websites | Linux distros).
- djanogo 5y agoI am curious why would they even test this?, seems like somebody was bored or trying to meet monthly quota of articles.
- marcodiego 5y agoI disagree. I've heard many times how much faster Arch and Gentoo are from anything else. It is good to know that you can have usability without sacrificing performance.
- detaro 5y agoFrom the beginning of the article: > his past week were the initial Linux benchmarks of the Ryzen 9 5900HX with the ASUS ROG Strix G15 laptop. Ubuntu was used as the default test platform as usual given its popularity and arguably the most relevant Linux distribution to use given that it's the most common Linux distribution at the moment for preloads on laptops by multiple vendors. In any case, as usual many users were quick to say "but Arch Linux!" as if it was going to make a dramatic difference in my findings.
- Leherenn 5y agoIt used to matter more I think, see this article from 2018. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=arch-antergos-clear&num=1 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=arch-ant...
- guilhas 5y agoSomehow Ubuntu pre-fills all the ram, and if you have 4gb or less it gets very slow. Arch you can run almost anywhere and most ppl customize it. Maybe it was the previous gnome version slowness, but arch always seems more fluid