Please pay more attention to GB and GiB, plus I like to see the real number, assuming your storage is 512GB I made the true calculation in GB: Fedora - 7.7 GB Arch - 45 GB Ubuntu - 49.2 GB Windows - 72 GB
Note that Edge on Windows 11 is always preloaded in the background at all times. You can disable this, but its enabled by default which means its still on your ram even if you don't use it
I mean we can also optimize the shit out of our Linux kernels never mind the desktop environment and distro. I think it makes sense to test vanilla like this. Was really informative
The reason things like kdenlive loaded faster on arch linux is because it ran kde plasma. The qt and other libraries are already loaded as they are used by other processes
thats a solid point, itd be very interesting to see a comparison between windows, and a distro like fedora with different DEs / WMs (eg gnome, kde, xfce and / or lxde, and maybe i3 / sway)
I really don't get why windows continues to use GB when everything else seemingly uses ... idk which there called like we keep representing Gib as GB and that gets so confusing
@@LaugeHeiberg Ya but honestly what bothers me most is why we don't just pick Binary and go with it. OMG some idiot who didn't know now thinks he has more storage! THAT'S IT! nothing else changes because windows is the only one who uses the messed up version
Well, no, there's gigabit, and there is gigabyte those are two different mesurments infact isps will usually advertise there speed in gigabit not gigabyte.
I know that Endeavour is about as close to Arch you can get without being vanilla Arch, but it's a bit misleading to call it "Arch" in a benchmarking video, especially when you check things like boot speed, storage, etc. Also I think going with Plasma for Endeavour nerfed it a bit extra, I think either going with Endeavour default (XFCE) or GNOME would be more fair. Not saying you shouldn't have used Endeavour, just call it "Endeavour".
If I'm completely honest as a Linux user of two years, the differences aren't that high right now between distros and Windows, but when I started using it there was a clear advantage for Windows in most things while Linux was behind or close behind, but right now this isn't the case and that speaks really good for Linux devs and distro maintainers
I have been exclusively on kde and macos for a couple years now. when I use windows i'm shocked at how clumsy the experience is, like system-wide freezes while explorer decides whether or not a network mount is viable
@@bobdouglass8010so shocking. Rare ass freezes when you do a super specific task, that linux is better at because its an ancient ass OS that still relies on terminal heavily.
@@kishirisu1268 I can't speak for everyone, but at least I haven't experienced any problems regarding language switching (and I do switch languages a lot) on both GNOME and KDE as I only add the layout in the config menu and I just switch it on the go, and about multi monitor I encountered problems back when I started with Linux Mint, now with Fedora, openSUSE and Ubuntu I haven't had a single problem, maybe it was just a X11 problem but it is been over a year and a half that I last used X11 for anything as I only use Wayland
windows losing in the read/write and other CPU tests can probably be chalked up to a couple things... mainly, linux dev hasn't focused on graphics cards quite as long as windows has, but also, windows is probably tying up a good chunk of the CPU and RAM bandwidth to compile and transmit every moment of your existence to Microsoft so they can sell it to advertisers
The main slow down is undoubtedly from Windows Defender, every action is being scanned and monitored by an anti-virus that none of the Linux distros have.
Honestly, have been playing on linux for 2 years now and the situation is really improving, some games are implementing the linux compatible EAC (example For Honor) so all it's missing is some open source nvidia drivers
Those open-source NVIDIA drivers do exist! They've recently added support for Vulkan, and while there are still features missing, the project is making significant progress.
@@ShrootBuckiirc in some games it did by a few percent, nothing crazy though. Too bad initial support is for 16/20 series and higher, my poor 1060 is crying.
@@Timely-ud4rm I remember that we got them but are still at 60% performance on avarage, but at this point I can see them getting close to proprietary in 1-2 years
@@theworldoffun8997 Obviously. But how much lower? How much worse than bare-metal linux? Can it beat native Windows for some of the poorer-optimized workloads? These are really Practical issues. Honestly, just seeing a short or addendum would be nice, though I know it's not likely he sees this.
@@adonnenit's alot lower. But on any quadcore laptop u can use any terminal application just fine on windows. Or learn powershell and use remmina for ssh.
I moved from win 10 -> win 11 -> Ubuntu -> fedora in a span of one week.Fedora is working smoothly for now.I did face some issues initially but it is fine now
@@fireninja8250, most cases, yes. This video is a comparison of minor differences. It's entirely different. Also, KDE and gnome is a whole different thing, back when I used either of those, KDE was like giga slow.
Copying in windows and linux is not the same. In Linux, the fact that the system shows copying completed does not mean that the process is finished. Even in the case of SSD, Linux still needs a few seconds in the background to save the cache. So unless you changed your configuration before the test, this one is not reliable.
I had the same experience. When windows says copying the file is done, it's done and device can be removed right away. But in linux systems it's still running in background for some reason. Until it properly finished user cannot safely eject the device.
@@nipunamarasekara607 It's even worse when we talk about moving files. The system erases files from the source before providing a write to the target. If the connection is interrupted during this time, the files are lost (excluding recovery tools from the source). And if you turn off the cache, copying takes forever. But the cache is not the problem, Windows also uses it, the problem is that the GUI does not know that the copying is still in progress, but it should be.
@@dreaper5813- I last used Windows in 2000 before I quit that job (they were still using NT, not 2000). Now, if a company makes it a requirement to use Windows, (barely metaphorical!) red flags and blaring sirens keep me on the right path.
@@dreaper5813 Which doesn't change the facts. The comparison of the copying process presented in the video makes absolutely no sense. In typical home use, Linux does not copy files any faster or better than Windows.
always love comparison videos like this, thanks :) tiny suggestion for next time: when you call out the time of one of the OS-es, stick that time in the screen of that OS. This way we can also visually compare them which is easier than running back the video to hear your voice. (and stop + remove the timer once the last OS has done its thing)
Hint: When you copy stuff on windows and you click on "Fewer details" it will transfer faster, because it's not doing the caluclation for speed anymore.
Ubuntu did surprisingly well. Fedora and Arch are both running a lot newer kernel versions so I thought Fedora would beat Ubuntu in virtually every task since you didn't go for 23.10, but Ubuntu ended up getting a lot of Ws against Fedora!
I really appreciate that you used proper benchmarking software like phoronix test suite! I would appreciate more charts with numbers that have more significant digits. IE 1.244K vs 1.2K. The charts you generated did look nicer! Keep it up!
Why using Crafty instead of some other modern open source engine like Stokfish? The project has been abandoned a long time ago and very likely the code does not scale well on modern CPU or even older ones considering how much time has passed.
Interesting. I have Windows 11 and Fedora 39 in a dual boot setup, and Fedora certainly seems a bit snappier. I know that something is causing my 500 Mb internet to slow to a crawl in Windows 11, that didn't happen in Windows 10, and I have yet to pin it down (lots of users got a similar experience). Fedora has no such issue. As a matter of fact, somehow it gets a blistering 630 Mb/sec.
I use Arch (btw) and I get like 5 Tb/sec when it's cold outside, every other Friday I get even 10 Tb/sec, but only if my dog had already eaten. I've heard that a lot of other users get the similar experience even if they don't have dogs. Weird, isn't it?
@no-prophet I tried Arch (btw), and it gave my dog diarrhea, and he caught a case of Parvo, too, so I deleted that unholy satanic rectal exam distro and installed a more pleasant experience. Now my dog is feeling much better and actually behaves well. Wierd, huh?
Doesn't the boot time on Linux depend on the file system? I used to have Ubuntu installed on ext4 and I feel that it boots much faster than when using btrfs.
about the file copying test, I have a computer running Linux, and my laptop on Windows 11. And copying anything to / from my pendrive is faster than Windows, BUT, WITH ONE QUIRK. Idk why but in Linux, whenever I finish copying files to my pendrive, it takes some time when I try to eject it. But in Windows, as soon as the transfer is finished, I can immediately eject it. So ultimately, In Linux, its transfer time + eject time. Where in Windows, its only the transfer time. If anyone has any logical explanation for this please clarify.
The Linux kernel makes your file available at it's new location faster by moving most of the data and updating the filesystem, while in the background it's still moving the rest of the data (like from the USB to your hard drive). Why? Developer obsession. If you didn't want to detach the drive right away, you wouldn't notice a thing.
@iijj22gg What is "Developer Obsession"? And it's this a bit misleading? Like it shows the copying is complete, but if you try to eject it, is says "Do not remove, writing data to usb". Why not just show the real speed in the first place? I'm guessing the answer is "developer obsession", so, I'd be greatful if you clarify this term also.
@@SifatUllah-12 Basically the devs who worked on this were obsessed with storage management, to the point where people have made debatable decisions. Although to further clarify, an entirely different set of developers worked on the GUI app you used to drag and drop the file, and I've only seen one or two file managers with a lingering visual indicating the kernel is still cleaning up in the background.
@@knowledgedose1956 Can't tell, I only ever used the ext4 file system because I'm not an expert in these file systems and I've heard ext4 is the most stable and standard fike system for Linux. But I've tried the latest Ubuntu 24.04 with Gnome 46. I think the time needed to eject the USB drive is noticably less than before!
When Windows 10 will end its support, I will most likely move to Arch. In the meantime, I hope that the gaming aspect on Linux improves aswell. This is the only reason why I'm still using Windows nowadays.
One test that would be interesting to see but would take a lot of time: power off laptop, wait one week, turn it back on and see how long it takes to install updates from the OS.
Windows might not have any updates at all (but Windows updates are annoying anyway), Ubuntu might have a few things, idk about Fedora. Arch would update like half the system lol.
What about smooth hd video play on youtube? Windows have it to be the best performer .In linux is fedora close to windows?I use Linux Mint for 4 months and it is disappointing as far as conserns the smooth hd playing on youtube with the same machine of course i see the difference.
Fedora battery life should improve even more next release when they transition from PPD to tuneD, and it might be getting x86 micro architecture levels (x64 v1/v2/v3) later down the line, similar to SuSE, for slightly better performance
The N95 processor is irrelevant in 2024. Really, we are now sitting with processor core counts well into the double digits. The few seconds of speed difference diminish to irrelevance as the processor counts increase.
I thought the main difference between the distros is the way they manage their packages. So the difference in performance would be the result of different versions of the used libraries and packages. Do I see this right?
Microsoft Windows obsession with backwards compatibility with older software it is a double-edged sword. On the plus side Windows compatibility with a particular program that isn't made anymore, or if you like a particular version of a software and hate the updated version, due to missing features or personal preferences Windows is going to give you the most overall software that will work with it. At the same time, it also means a lot of random files and processes in the background eating up CPU/GPU, RAM, and Cache so on lower end or machines meant to use less power it costs performance. I say there is no Best OS, it is what your personal preferences and software you need to run dictate the best OS for your use case.
Recently there was a German article that found that most Windows games are now faster with Linux with proton, than natively. Also Endeavor OS, as any arch have different kernels, ZEN, LTS, and RT, and other distros too I suggest you to use these variants in benchmarks to show which are better for each task. Last but not least, copy ext4 to ext4, btrfs to btrfs, xfs to xfs, zfs to zfs, ntfs to ntfs and extfat to extfat, copy/write are available on Linux, and with WSL on Windows and you can also add cross copying to show how the OSs perform. I dual boot MS WOS and Endeauvor OS, sometimes I do not use MS WOS for months, and I have to update it, and each time is slower the update, compared to any Linux, and also it feels slower it seems the mouse latency is less on Linux and the browser (now almost all chromium inside) is faster.
Yes, I repeated tests for all the synthetic benchmarking. Also repeated the side by sides just to make sure there wasn't any abnormalities from the initial recording. I ran the geekbench tests three times and phoronix test suite does three runs and gives us the average. Computer had about 10 minutes of idle time between each benchmark.
I have been using Fedora for a month on my laptop. I am suprised at the battery performance of my laptop. When I close the lid the battery use to drain in a few hours but on Fedora, it doesn't drain and wakes up quickly on opening the lid again. Even when opening after 2 days, the battery has not dropped much. Similar to what I have seen on my M1 Macbook Air. Is this the same with other linux distros as well or only with Fedora ?
Impressed by fedora small size. Ultimately I think most people choose os based on convenience. I had SO many problems with fedora in the short time I tried it I just couldn't keep using it and went back to my windows + Ubuntu routine. When I tried manjaro it was great for a while, until I let the machine offline for a few months and got stuck in dependency hell. Arch I only used for a uni project, performance was great on a very bad laptop, but instalation was too cumbersome and, against, convenience. So yeah, I don't think Ubuntu is perfect and honestly I have a lot of problems/disagreements with it, same goes for windows, but they are the simplest to live with for my use. It's really hard to try and bring people to Linux if they can't first, do their job, and second, keep the machine running for a long time.
Great video but one thing to note. Modern gaming is almost entirely dominated by both DirectX 12 and Vulkan for graphics rendering in games, linux natively supports Vulkan and its super efficient making games run really well, and games running DX12 on steam via Proton are translated into Vulkan making performance on par or somtimes better on linux due to a combination of less resources being used by the os and Vulkan often improving things due to its efficiency. I only mention this because of the use of OpenGL in the gaming benchmark, the only time i have seen OpenGL/CL on my linux system was for video editing in Davinci Resolve.
Well regarding Gaming on Linux I saw actually a massive performance boost from Ubutnu compared to Windows or Fedora. In Monster Hunter World (MT Framework) (sadly only DirectX, although it was also released for Playstation where its using Vulkan ????) Im running at the game at 1440p Windows : 140-150 FPS Fedora : 160-165 FPS Ubuntu : 175-185 FPS that being said i used on Ubuntu btrfs and the xanmod Kernel (Xanmod Kernel boosts gaming perf a little bit, btrfs worsens it if you are using Proton which you have to with this game) I was able to observer Similiar Results In Capcom Games running on the RE Engine aswell as in Gotham Knights (UE4) and Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order (UE4) (at the time of testing i didnt have Jedi Survivor), Minecraft performed mostly the same (generating chunks and world edit where a lot faster and smoother compared to Windows). When it Comes to emulation : Every emulator except Nintendo 3ds emualtors runs better on Linux. -if mentioning this causes issues please ask me to edit the comment and dont block or report it thx. PS: Raytracing shaders in Minecraft worked just as good on Linux My PC is all AMD just to note Zen4 + RDNA3 Only Caveat at the time i set my system up Corectrl the Counter part(atleast for HW tuning) to MSI afterburner or AMD Adrenalin Sogtware is it didnt fully support RDNA3 yet (it capped my GPU at 2200 Mhz although on Windows it would run at 2700 on default / auto settings -- turns out after a lot of testing it runs between 2100 and 2400 Mhz the most efficient and typically the highest efficiency at 2200 Mhz) And when it comes to developing or even just scripting : Windows: Trying to setup Programming Languages with the whole strange way to add things to the path etc is such a pa!n in the a$$ , trying to set up a Dev environment or SSH / Server-Managing Environment up is horrible experience and for those suggesting WSL / WSL2 a yes but it mostly doesnt work (try it for 2-3 months and youll see) its really bad and technically a VM running a strange Linux Kernel Fork of Microsoft. On Linux in order to code in C C++ or Python you technically dont even need an IDE, setting up a new IDE/Dev-Environment is so easy and painless compared to Windows. When it comes to Server, SSH, SSL or Networking stuff - thats just so much easier on Linux running a command or two editing a cfg or config file and its done. Last thing to mention is if you use ubuntu LTS dont use xanmod or Liquorix Kernels it will break stuff ( Dont use Liquorix at all some of the tuning that one has undergone is too agressive and for most tasks it worsens performance quite a bit atleast on Zen3 and Zen4 )
Hey, did you got Ubuntu with btrfs-luks on those tests? That is quite good results. Also, not sure if you checked but how was your battery/power consumption compared to Fedora?
@@Berecutecu no on those installations i didnt use LVM and or LUKS so no full disk encryption. Also no encrypted Volumes folders and Partitions so its almost zero overhead. And at the time i tested it Fedora defaulted to btrfs as well, now I'm using XFS and i gotta say in some Games it boosts the 1% Lows quite a bit (I assume that these games use multiple threads synchron or asynchronously to fetch for data from the disk)
@@limeisgaming interesting, thanks for sharing adding more context. So that is the thing, I believe that btrfs from Fedora may be slowing it down with the inefficient I/O performance compared to Ubuntu ext4. DJ Ware has some videos comparing them.
I was going to say at the beginning of the video that the title must be changed, as EndevourOS is not Arch, and later on, it got confirmed in the tests.
I switched from win 11 to linux mint during christmas. i7 7700HQ, 1070gtx in an HP omen laptop. but I changed SSD and ram (from 512gb ssd and 16gb ram to 4tb ssd and 64gb ram). so I cannot truly compare the two. I had a period of a bit over a month where I ran windows with 64gb ram, it worked better, and switching to linux + faster SSD just ramped up the speed again. essentially, what I can say to everyone who wants to try: just do it, it isn't hard.
Copy a file over the network from a Linux Server (any Linux desktop distro will do) over SMB and Windows will beat them ALL hands down. Only way you can get Linux to come close is to pre-add the network drive during boot-up basically outside of the GUI. For whatever reason, Windows beats it hands down when copying over the network.
YT playback test should be done in 4k or 1080p60 fps. I guess 720p30 was chosen on purpose to not show how bad video playback and HW acceleration situation is on linux.
Genuinely surprised that Windows lost the battery war, that's like the one thing I expected Windows to dominate on (even though Linux is more efficient, battery power is infamously bad)
In General battery life seems to be much better on Linux than a few years ago. But It really depends on the device. Drivers are a big factor in that. I tried it myself on two devices, my Asus Zenbook gets even more battery life in Arch than Windows. The MSI Laptop I tried gets much less battery life than in Windows. Both Laptops were configured with TLP.
I switched from Ubuntu to Fedora a couple of years ago and I thought (think?) Fedora was faster. Seems this might just have been prejudice on my part as I was grumpy about some of Ubuntu's behavior. Now this might be true in my use case, or not. This points out the importance of testing (which I did not do), rather than relying on subjective feelings. Thanks for your work.
@@TechHut Graduation is huge, congrats! You must be feeling so relieved from that. Looking forward to the future videos. I'm currently excited to test out the pop OS cosmic desktop when it comes out to beta.
I don't have comparable machines to test on, but I can say that Windows performance in the wild is vastly different than a test system. I support hundreds of users and it certainly gives me a jaded perspective on the performance of Windows. Decent systems, generally, but they often run slow. I tune them up to make them perform better, but they're not great. Now, I have a Windows computer I use sometimes, for games or to run the LogMeIn cliet that they've failed to provide for Linux for a decade. Mostly RDPing into it from my Linux main computer. And, it's an older PC with a 6th Gen CPU. It seems to run quite well for it's age. Of course, I haven't put Windows 11 on it, so that probably has some bearing. And it's my computer, so conforming to my standards and not loaded with lots of background bloat. Non-tech people using their Windows PCs are the biggest performance hit is what I'm saying.
Most of the time, when switching from Windows to Ubuntu, there tends to be a lot of compatibility issues for me whenever I try to do a Linux sprint for a time. There's just not enough stability for imo for my use case typically. In terms of performance, I have noticed that generally Ubuntu, openSUSE, Fedora...etc, those tend to run faster overall on my machine (and take up fewer resources in general). Its just every time I try to setup drivers, specific games I want to play, and more (like my Index for instance) there is just always some compatibility issue with any Linux flavor I have tried that makes the OS a no-go for me (no matter how much tinkering I try to do to fix it). Love Linux when I've used it...but sadly Linux does not love me back lol. Glad to see though in general that Valve has been doing an excellent job getting Linux compatibility off the ground (and slowly growing market share there).
Well that depends on the graphics card you have. If u have an nvidia u need to make sure to install the proprietary drivers. If u have amd u will be fine and don't have to do anything unless u have problems.. (wich most likely will never happen unless u didn't do updates for years) When it comes to gaming u can almost get any game running as long as it doesn't have easy anti-cheat. And yes some games WILL get u to your limit in order to work (but that's part of the fun (and the learning curve) I guess)
In my opinion Endeavor is a pretty bad experience, I rate it worse than Mankato. I just don't like the default behaviors at all and it's also bloated feeling. Regular Arch with the stuff I need, configured to my liking, is miles better than anything else
on EndeavourOS installing using BTRFS automatically selects zstd disk compression and it will be the smaller install from that point forward (yes, zstd is great)
im still here booting into windows 5 minutes after i press the power button, then another 5-10 minutes to wait for windows to finish with it's background thingies
I have moved to Linux several years back. Windows did drive me crazy with those "update" notice. Come in to work and today it had to be update time. The download times on windows are terrible. So sometimes one hour later i can start my job on a crappy windows machine. So never ever windows again...
You really shoulda ran pure arch. Endeavor is nice for easy setup but you can get arch faster with a pure install. Linux-zen kernel is more lightweight for example. Running a window manager generally is also much faster. I run arch pure w/qtile on most of my machines & it boots in less than like 8 seconds
Why Windows has OpenGL and DirectX but Linus had only OpenGL? Aren't supposed to be there a vulkan too? ( Which performance better on linux that OpenGL )
I think booting up on windows is pretty fast fresh after installation, especially with just a few things installed. when you have it work ready, with office, maybe discord steam and things the booting takes a lot longer. this is my experience. i switched from windows to manjaro and arch btw after that and it made a huge impact. especially on bare arch. i used the same programs as in windows and my booting time went from almost 2min 30s to windows desktop to around 50 seconds. with the exception that when i am on the desktop in arch everything is loaded. an i could start right away. whereas in windows i have to wait a few minutes for it to be fully usable.
Of course the real benchmark is how long it takes a real person to do a real task. It's a very niche situation where the user is specifically waiting on the machine to do something these days. It's more about how long does it take to install specific software, get things to work, etc. If I benchmarked how long it takes to install and get games working, Windows would blow linux out of the water almost every time. If it were for building and running apps, Linux would win handily. As far as why Gimp and some others take so much longer on windows, I don't know for sure if this is the cause -- but I know threads and subprocesses take WAY longer to spin on on windows than on linux.
¡Excelente video! Gracias bro Yo me cambié a Ubuntu hace 4 años, y ha sido la mejor decisión que he tomado en cuanto a uso de mi equipo se refiere. Tú lo ratificas hoy con tus pruebas. Fuerte abrazo y bendiciones desde Venezuela
For arch, you can get a way lower space footprint if you install a more minimal initial packageset during the setup; e.g. just installing GNOME + base stuff, or plasma + base stuff - a base plasma system can take up less than 6GB in many cases. I have a feeling that using endeavouros may have also affected boot times significantly
I switched from OSX and Windows to Linux as my work daily driver. There was a pretty noticeable increase in the speed applications would load and running especially using i3WM with very little bells and whistles. Unfortunately, Linux isn't perfect as a work daily driver due to the amount of Windows/OSX products I have to use like Active Directory and Horos, but it's still nice to get away from Windows and OSX for a while.
Would be interesting to see which filesystems the different Linuxes were installed to and if baremetal or LVM is used. I am sure this makes a difference in the test results.
Please pay more attention to GB and GiB, plus I like to see the real number, assuming your storage is 512GB I made the true calculation in GB:
Fedora - 7.7 GB
Arch - 45 GB
Ubuntu - 49.2 GB
Windows - 72 GB
Fr
Is arch using GiB or GB ?
@@CA-JA4:10 it shows GiB
I was quite surprised Ubuntu and Arch could take this much space. That didn’t look right 😮
All of these tests with endeavor are taken with a grain of salt
Edge opens faster on Windows 11 because it was running in the background already.
Windows 11 itself boots fast because it never properly closes all the open files 😅
Fast startup.. @@ParthyFrez
LMAO
@@franchocou More like "hibernate"
To be fair that would be the average user experience
Note that Edge on Windows 11 is always preloaded in the background at all times. You can disable this, but its enabled by default which means its still on your ram even if you don't use it
Not only ram but it occupies vram like some other apps in windows. This results in less free vram for games.
Especially ngreedia gpu owners may not like to have even less vram :)
I mean we can also optimize the shit out of our Linux kernels never mind the desktop environment and distro. I think it makes sense to test vanilla like this. Was really informative
@@aladdin8623 NVIDIA GeForce more like NVIDIA GeNocide (They are building a supercomputer for Israel)
Teams too, it makes your fan race, like really.
The reason things like kdenlive loaded faster on arch linux is because it ran kde plasma. The qt and other libraries are already loaded as they are used by other processes
thats a solid point, itd be very interesting to see a comparison between windows, and a distro like fedora with different DEs / WMs (eg gnome, kde, xfce and / or lxde, and maybe i3 / sway)
Makes sense, integrated tool chains.
Just one thing, 435 Gib are equal to 467 Gb so windows is last 😢
I really don't get why windows continues to use GB when everything else seemingly uses ... idk which there called like we keep representing Gib as GB and that gets so confusing
@@piman13_71It's metric vs binary
Funny how metric is the one that makes less sense
@@LaugeHeiberg Ya but honestly what bothers me most is why we don't just pick Binary and go with it. OMG some idiot who didn't know now thinks he has more storage! THAT'S IT! nothing else changes because windows is the only one who uses the messed up version
Goddamn it, Gibi vs Giga strikes again
Well, no, there's gigabit, and there is gigabyte those are two different mesurments infact isps will usually advertise there speed in gigabit not gigabyte.
I know that Endeavour is about as close to Arch you can get without being vanilla Arch, but it's a bit misleading to call it "Arch" in a benchmarking video, especially when you check things like boot speed, storage, etc.
Also I think going with Plasma for Endeavour nerfed it a bit extra, I think either going with Endeavour default (XFCE) or GNOME would be more fair.
Not saying you shouldn't have used Endeavour, just call it "Endeavour".
I agree
Yeah, it's just like saying you are testing Debian while actually using Ubuntu.
Endeavouros default is no longer XFCE, they switched to KDE a few months ago
@@Kashim_oI did not know that, my live/installer USB is still using xfce.
Lmao going with Plasma gave advantage to KDE
If I'm completely honest as a Linux user of two years, the differences aren't that high right now between distros and Windows, but when I started using it there was a clear advantage for Windows in most things while Linux was behind or close behind, but right now this isn't the case and that speaks really good for Linux devs and distro maintainers
I have been exclusively on kde and macos for a couple years now. when I use windows i'm shocked at how clumsy the experience is, like system-wide freezes while explorer decides whether or not a network mount is viable
still bad support nvidia, flickering and other.
@@bobdouglass8010so shocking. Rare ass freezes when you do a super specific task, that linux is better at because its an ancient ass OS that still relies on terminal heavily.
It's just crazy how good is GNU/linux.
@@kishirisu1268 I can't speak for everyone, but at least I haven't experienced any problems regarding language switching (and I do switch languages a lot) on both GNOME and KDE as I only add the layout in the config menu and I just switch it on the go, and about multi monitor I encountered problems back when I started with Linux Mint, now with Fedora, openSUSE and Ubuntu I haven't had a single problem, maybe it was just a X11 problem but it is been over a year and a half that I last used X11 for anything as I only use Wayland
windows losing in the read/write and other CPU tests can probably be chalked up to a couple things... mainly, linux dev hasn't focused on graphics cards quite as long as windows has, but also, windows is probably tying up a good chunk of the CPU and RAM bandwidth to compile and transmit every moment of your existence to Microsoft so they can sell it to advertisers
The main slow down is undoubtedly from Windows Defender, every action is being scanned and monitored by an anti-virus that none of the Linux distros have.
@@looncraz i am sure thats the reason
@@looncraz clamAV is installed on my system and realtime protection is on but it always says 0% cpu...
Good ole tin foil hat innit.
You will get better fps in linux because you cant figure out how to get your monitor to display at native resolution
Honestly, have been playing on linux for 2 years now and the situation is really improving, some games are implementing the linux compatible EAC (example For Honor) so all it's missing is some open source nvidia drivers
Even those are getting pretty good, didn't the nvk driver outperform official nvidia drivers on some stuff?
Those open-source NVIDIA drivers do exist! They've recently added support for Vulkan, and while there are still features missing, the project is making significant progress.
@@ShrootBuckiirc in some games it did by a few percent, nothing crazy though. Too bad initial support is for 16/20 series and higher, my poor 1060 is crying.
@@Timely-ud4rm I remember that we got them but are still at 60% performance on avarage, but at this point I can see them getting close to proprietary in 1-2 years
IS "GREEN LUMA " supported on linux? Also can we mod games in linux like skyrim, gta v etc?
Please do this test again after kernel 6.9 is released later this year!
Would be cool to see an intel vs AMD laptop comparison as well as desktop etc
Surprising battery result - great to see
yeah, really surprising, considering hw acceleration in chromium is not a strong point of linux
@@bkmnst Yes, I'm curious if it's a local video playback test with VLC and hardware acceleration on
@@bkmnst iirc there is some work happening to make hw acceleration work nicely on linux, so really hoping to see when that comes out
@@chickenbobbobba acceleration already works in firefox apparently
@@AndRei-yc3ti neat
GiB not the same as GB
Would be interesting (and useful) to see the benchmarks in wsl.
wsl is a virtual machine, dude. Results are gonna be lower
@@theworldoffun8997 Obviously. But how much lower? How much worse than bare-metal linux? Can it beat native Windows for some of the poorer-optimized workloads? These are really Practical issues.
Honestly, just seeing a short or addendum would be nice, though I know it's not likely he sees this.
@@theworldoffun8997 wsl is not a virtual machine, wsl2 is.
@@adonnenit's alot lower. But on any quadcore laptop u can use any terminal application just fine on windows. Or learn powershell and use remmina for ssh.
@@BestSpatula wsl2 superseded wsl1, when people say "wsl" they are referring to wsl2.
I moved from win 10 -> win 11 -> Ubuntu -> fedora in a span of one week.Fedora is working smoothly for now.I did face some issues initially but it is fine now
Hey bro what you have now 😂
I switched from windows 10 to 11 to ubuntu, ubuntu feels good but I need to explore more
What's your advice?
Great comparison, thanks for the video. However, if you are going to call EndeavorOS Arch Linux, you might as well call Ubuntu Debian ☺
I'm on Debian switching from Ubuntu. They're basically the same so I don't get your point.
Ubuntu is bloated as heck and uses snap, meaning dependencies dont get shared amongst packages. I guess thats about it@@fireninja8250
@@fireninja8250 same with endeavouros and arch
@@fireninja8250, most cases, yes. This video is a comparison of minor differences. It's entirely different. Also, KDE and gnome is a whole different thing, back when I used either of those, KDE was like giga slow.
If you enable the Ubuntu repo on Debian, you are basically using Ubuntu.
Copying in windows and linux is not the same. In Linux, the fact that the system shows copying completed does not mean that the process is finished. Even in the case of SSD, Linux still needs a few seconds in the background to save the cache. So unless you changed your configuration before the test, this one is not reliable.
I had the same experience. When windows says copying the file is done, it's done and device can be removed right away. But in linux systems it's still running in background for some reason. Until it properly finished user cannot safely eject the device.
@@nipunamarasekara607 It's even worse when we talk about moving files. The system erases files from the source before providing a write to the target. If the connection is interrupted during this time, the files are lost (excluding recovery tools from the source). And if you turn off the cache, copying takes forever. But the cache is not the problem, Windows also uses it, the problem is that the GUI does not know that the copying is still in progress, but it should be.
@@dreaper5813- I last used Windows in 2000 before I quit that job (they were still using NT, not 2000). Now, if a company makes it a requirement to use Windows, (barely metaphorical!) red flags and blaring sirens keep me on the right path.
@@dreaper5813 Which doesn't change the facts. The comparison of the copying process presented in the video makes absolutely no sense. In typical home use, Linux does not copy files any faster or better than Windows.
@dreaper5813 skill issue
always love comparison videos like this, thanks :)
tiny suggestion for next time: when you call out the time of one of the OS-es, stick that time in the screen of that OS. This way we can also visually compare them which is easier than running back the video to hear your voice. (and stop + remove the timer once the last OS has done its thing)
Hint: When you copy stuff on windows and you click on "Fewer details" it will transfer faster, because it's not doing the caluclation for speed anymore.
source?
bro , on mid range machines , you will be bottlenecked by ssd speed instead
4:04 GiB GB. Purists use GiB. Sales people GB. If you from the 90s most likely GiB. So arch is doing it right.
Ubuntu did surprisingly well. Fedora and Arch are both running a lot newer kernel versions so I thought Fedora would beat Ubuntu in virtually every task since you didn't go for 23.10, but Ubuntu ended up getting a lot of Ws against Fedora!
newer is not always better it seems😊
I really appreciate that you used proper benchmarking software like phoronix test suite! I would appreciate more charts with numbers that have more significant digits. IE 1.244K vs 1.2K. The charts you generated did look nicer! Keep it up!
I use Fedora KDE variant and works nice for me + its installed on kingston sata SSD.
me too
Was core isolation disabled on win11? It lowers performace a lot
Yep and memory protection made Linux look faster
Why using Crafty instead of some other modern open source engine like Stokfish? The project has been abandoned a long time ago and very likely the code does not scale well on modern CPU or even older ones considering how much time has passed.
I'll note this for future benchmarking videos. Thank you.
@@TechHut No problem, asked out of curiosity! 👍
What you think about Zorin os? I like that system but Im not sure is that best option.
Is there a way to test for the most reliable or ‘available’ in terms of reboots needed, bsod’s or any type of outage, updates, etc?
Interesting. I have Windows 11 and Fedora 39 in a dual boot setup, and Fedora certainly seems a bit snappier. I know that something is causing my 500 Mb internet to slow to a crawl in Windows 11, that didn't happen in Windows 10, and I have yet to pin it down (lots of users got a similar experience). Fedora has no such issue. As a matter of fact, somehow it gets a blistering 630 Mb/sec.
I use Arch (btw) and I get like 5 Tb/sec when it's cold outside, every other Friday I get even 10 Tb/sec, but only if my dog had already eaten. I've heard that a lot of other users get the similar experience even if they don't have dogs. Weird, isn't it?
@no-prophet I tried Arch (btw), and it gave my dog diarrhea, and he caught a case of Parvo, too, so I deleted that unholy satanic rectal exam distro and installed a more pleasant experience. Now my dog is feeling much better and actually behaves well. Wierd, huh?
I think you mean Mbps/MBps or something. ( If this was a joke i didn't get it, don't blame me).
@@NotSeggsySage correct. Sorry. Had multiple things going at a time. Brain fart...
What File systems and partitioning schemes did you use on the Linux installations ?
Was memory core isolation disabled in Windows?
Doesn't the boot time on Linux depend on the file system? I used to have Ubuntu installed on ext4 and I feel that it boots much faster than when using btrfs.
4:12 have you cleaned old pacman packages on Arch based system?
He was wrong here as there is a big difference between GiB and Gb in terms of storage
what settings did you use for these? Both windows and fedora come with profiles which can heavily skew the results depending on what you're aiming for
Thank You So Much I Appreciate Your Efforts So Much ❤
about the file copying test, I have a computer running Linux, and my laptop on Windows 11. And copying anything to / from my pendrive is faster than Windows, BUT, WITH ONE QUIRK. Idk why but in Linux, whenever I finish copying files to my pendrive, it takes some time when I try to eject it. But in Windows, as soon as the transfer is finished, I can immediately eject it.
So ultimately, In Linux, its transfer time + eject time. Where in Windows, its only the transfer time.
If anyone has any logical explanation for this please clarify.
The Linux kernel makes your file available at it's new location faster by moving most of the data and updating the filesystem, while in the background it's still moving the rest of the data (like from the USB to your hard drive). Why? Developer obsession. If you didn't want to detach the drive right away, you wouldn't notice a thing.
@iijj22gg What is "Developer Obsession"?
And it's this a bit misleading? Like it shows the copying is complete, but if you try to eject it, is says "Do not remove, writing data to usb". Why not just show the real speed in the first place?
I'm guessing the answer is "developer obsession", so, I'd be greatful if you clarify this term also.
@@SifatUllah-12 Basically the devs who worked on this were obsessed with storage management, to the point where people have made debatable decisions. Although to further clarify, an entirely different set of developers worked on the GUI app you used to drag and drop the file, and I've only seen one or two file managers with a lingering visual indicating the kernel is still cleaning up in the background.
does btrfs solves this? i am not an expert
@@knowledgedose1956 Can't tell, I only ever used the ext4 file system because I'm not an expert in these file systems and I've heard ext4 is the most stable and standard fike system for Linux.
But I've tried the latest Ubuntu 24.04 with Gnome 46. I think the time needed to eject the USB drive is noticably less than before!
When Windows 10 will end its support, I will most likely move to Arch. In the meantime, I hope that the gaming aspect on Linux improves aswell.
This is the only reason why I'm still using Windows nowadays.
Me aswell on Windows 11 gonna wait 10 years until Windows 11 no longer gets supported by Microsoft
One test that would be interesting to see but would take a lot of time: power off laptop, wait one week, turn it back on and see how long it takes to install updates from the OS.
Windows might not have any updates at all (but Windows updates are annoying anyway), Ubuntu might have a few things, idk about Fedora. Arch would update like half the system lol.
@@iijj22gg Well, it's Arch's feature, so this comparison may be not a good idea to do
on arch my gigabit Internet gets turned to shreds I have kilobit speeds and after like 5 hours I could not fix it
this video was released just 9 months ago but was testing an old ubuntu LTS release, hmm
What about smooth hd video play on youtube? Windows have it to be the best performer .In linux is fedora close to windows?I use Linux Mint for 4 months and it is disappointing as far as conserns the smooth hd playing on youtube with the same machine of course i see the difference.
Which laptop you used for testing?
Well done. All this extensive testing would have taken you ages.
Fedora battery life should improve even more next release when they transition from PPD to tuneD, and it might be getting x86 micro architecture levels (x64 v1/v2/v3) later down the line, similar to SuSE, for slightly better performance
why would you download edge on linux
The N95 processor is irrelevant in 2024. Really, we are now sitting with processor core counts well into the double digits. The few seconds of speed difference diminish to irrelevance as the processor counts increase.
I thought the main difference between the distros is the way they manage their packages. So the difference in performance would be the result of different versions of the used libraries and packages. Do I see this right?
File transfer results not real. On Linux systems need "sync" command after copy/move because Kernel does not finished in background.
Microsoft Windows obsession with backwards compatibility with older software it is a double-edged sword. On the plus side Windows compatibility with a particular program that isn't made anymore, or if you like a particular version of a software and hate the updated version, due to missing features or personal preferences Windows is going to give you the most overall software that will work with it. At the same time, it also means a lot of random files and processes in the background eating up CPU/GPU, RAM, and Cache so on lower end or machines meant to use less power it costs performance. I say there is no Best OS, it is what your personal preferences and software you need to run dictate the best OS for your use case.
Any ideas about why that render was nearly twice as fast on Fedora compared to Ubuntu?
Still while using them...windows feels more smoother to use & not able to customize touchpad gestures which is complete deal breaker for me on linux
Recently there was a German article that found that most Windows games are now faster with Linux with proton, than natively.
Also Endeavor OS, as any arch have different kernels, ZEN, LTS, and RT, and other distros too I suggest you to use these variants in benchmarks to show which are better for each task.
Last but not least, copy ext4 to ext4, btrfs to btrfs, xfs to xfs, zfs to zfs, ntfs to ntfs and extfat to extfat, copy/write are available on Linux, and with WSL on Windows and you can also add cross copying to show how the OSs perform.
I dual boot MS WOS and Endeauvor OS, sometimes I do not use MS WOS for months, and I have to update it, and each time is slower the update, compared to any Linux, and also it feels slower it seems the mouse latency is less on Linux and the browser (now almost all chromium inside) is faster.
Can you tell me the address of this article? Thanks!
@@derekmin6592 COMPUTERBASEBETRIEBSSYSTEMBERICHTE
Linux-Gaming: Mit welcher Distribution laufen Windows-Games am besten? if links are censored
Nice..
Also, these bots need to stop lmao
What’s ur worst job lol
Right, like at least make sense lol
May I know the device specs? At least I wanna know the battery capacity.
Do you run these tests more than one to get average
What was the testing methodology? Did you repeat the tests at least 3 times for each OS?
Yes, I repeated tests for all the synthetic benchmarking. Also repeated the side by sides just to make sure there wasn't any abnormalities from the initial recording. I ran the geekbench tests three times and phoronix test suite does three runs and gives us the average. Computer had about 10 minutes of idle time between each benchmark.
I have been using Fedora for a month on my laptop. I am suprised at the battery performance of my laptop. When I close the lid the battery use to drain in a few hours but on Fedora, it doesn't drain and wakes up quickly on opening the lid again. Even when opening after 2 days, the battery has not dropped much. Similar to what I have seen on my M1 Macbook Air. Is this the same with other linux distros as well or only with Fedora ?
Same hereeeee, I'm in love with Fedora fr
I wonder what the results will be on FreeBSD...
Me too.
Impressed by fedora small size. Ultimately I think most people choose os based on convenience. I had SO many problems with fedora in the short time I tried it I just couldn't keep using it and went back to my windows + Ubuntu routine. When I tried manjaro it was great for a while, until I let the machine offline for a few months and got stuck in dependency hell. Arch I only used for a uni project, performance was great on a very bad laptop, but instalation was too cumbersome and, against, convenience. So yeah, I don't think Ubuntu is perfect and honestly I have a lot of problems/disagreements with it, same goes for windows, but they are the simplest to live with for my use. It's really hard to try and bring people to Linux if they can't first, do their job, and second, keep the machine running for a long time.
What is that usb with the removable nvme called?
For gaming who are the best? OS or distros
Great video but one thing to note. Modern gaming is almost entirely dominated by both DirectX 12 and Vulkan for graphics rendering in games, linux natively supports Vulkan and its super efficient making games run really well, and games running DX12 on steam via Proton are translated into Vulkan making performance on par or somtimes better on linux due to a combination of less resources being used by the os and Vulkan often improving things due to its efficiency. I only mention this because of the use of OpenGL in the gaming benchmark, the only time i have seen OpenGL/CL on my linux system was for video editing in Davinci Resolve.
Well regarding Gaming on Linux I saw actually a massive performance boost from Ubutnu compared to Windows or Fedora.
In Monster Hunter World (MT Framework) (sadly only DirectX, although it was also released for Playstation where its using Vulkan ????)
Im running at the game at 1440p
Windows : 140-150 FPS
Fedora : 160-165 FPS
Ubuntu : 175-185 FPS
that being said i used on Ubuntu btrfs and the xanmod Kernel (Xanmod Kernel boosts gaming perf a little bit, btrfs worsens it if you are using Proton which you have to with this game)
I was able to observer Similiar Results In Capcom Games running on the RE Engine aswell as in Gotham Knights (UE4) and Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order (UE4) (at the time of testing i didnt have Jedi Survivor), Minecraft performed mostly the same (generating chunks and world edit where a lot faster and smoother compared to Windows).
When it Comes to emulation : Every emulator except Nintendo 3ds emualtors runs better on Linux. -if mentioning this causes issues please ask me to edit the comment and dont block or report it thx.
PS: Raytracing shaders in Minecraft worked just as good on Linux
My PC is all AMD just to note Zen4 + RDNA3
Only Caveat at the time i set my system up Corectrl the Counter part(atleast for HW tuning) to MSI afterburner or AMD Adrenalin Sogtware is it didnt fully support RDNA3 yet (it capped my GPU at 2200 Mhz although on Windows it would run at 2700 on default / auto settings -- turns out after a lot of testing it runs between 2100 and 2400 Mhz the most efficient and typically the highest efficiency at 2200 Mhz)
And when it comes to developing or even just scripting :
Windows: Trying to setup Programming Languages with the whole strange way to add things to the path etc is such a pa!n in the a$$ , trying to set up a Dev environment or SSH / Server-Managing Environment up is horrible experience and for those suggesting WSL / WSL2 a yes but it mostly doesnt work (try it for 2-3 months and youll see) its really bad and technically a VM running a strange Linux Kernel Fork of Microsoft.
On Linux in order to code in C C++ or Python you technically dont even need an IDE, setting up a new IDE/Dev-Environment is so easy and painless compared to Windows. When it comes to Server, SSH, SSL or Networking stuff - thats just so much easier on Linux running a command or two editing a cfg or config file and its done.
Last thing to mention is if you use ubuntu LTS dont use xanmod or Liquorix Kernels it will break stuff ( Dont use Liquorix at all some of the tuning that one has undergone is too agressive and for most tasks it worsens performance quite a bit atleast on Zen3 and Zen4 )
Hey, did you got Ubuntu with btrfs-luks on those tests? That is quite good results.
Also, not sure if you checked but how was your battery/power consumption compared to Fedora?
@@Berecutecu no on those installations i didnt use LVM and or LUKS so no full disk encryption. Also no encrypted Volumes folders and Partitions so its almost zero overhead.
And at the time i tested it Fedora defaulted to btrfs as well, now I'm using XFS and i gotta say in some Games it boosts the 1% Lows quite a bit (I assume that these games use multiple threads synchron or asynchronously to fetch for data from the disk)
@@limeisgaming interesting, thanks for sharing adding more context. So that is the thing, I believe that btrfs from Fedora may be slowing it down with the inefficient I/O performance compared to Ubuntu ext4. DJ Ware has some videos comparing them.
I have a tablet (nabu) that runs Windows 11 and Ubuntu 23.10 (both aarch64), so this video came in very handy 😁
Great comparison. Wish you also do a side by side comparison with Linux Mint.
great test, thanks for the work
I was going to say at the beginning of the video that the title must be changed, as EndevourOS is not Arch, and later on, it got confirmed in the tests.
I switched from win 11 to linux mint during christmas.
i7 7700HQ, 1070gtx in an HP omen laptop.
but I changed SSD and ram (from 512gb ssd and 16gb ram to 4tb ssd and 64gb ram).
so I cannot truly compare the two. I had a period of a bit over a month where I ran windows with 64gb ram, it worked better, and switching to linux + faster SSD just ramped up the speed again.
essentially, what I can say to everyone who wants to try: just do it, it isn't hard.
Copy a file over the network from a Linux Server (any Linux desktop distro will do) over SMB and Windows will beat them ALL hands down. Only way you can get Linux to come close is to pre-add the network drive during boot-up basically outside of the GUI. For whatever reason, Windows beats it hands down when copying over the network.
I don't think that this is the issue for everyday desktop for most of the users
YT playback test should be done in 4k or 1080p60 fps. I guess 720p30 was chosen on purpose to not show how bad video playback and HW acceleration situation is on linux.
Even with nvidia hc acc goes flawless on My setup.
What do you mean? Have you heard of VAAPI?
@@mujan5627 YT - LG OLED: The Circle 4K 60fps | LG - how many flawlessly frames does your system drop in a short video?
I believe the machine is not powerful enough? It is the Celeron successor after all.
Well, i mean, good luck trying to put a 4k video in a low end laptop with integrated graphics lol
Nice tube, would like to see some video encoding results in test like that. Especially if you will do N100 benchmarks.
Genuinely surprised that Windows lost the battery war, that's like the one thing I expected Windows to dominate on (even though Linux is more efficient, battery power is infamously bad)
In General battery life seems to be much better on Linux than a few years ago.
But It really depends on the device. Drivers are a big factor in that.
I tried it myself on two devices, my Asus Zenbook gets even more battery life in Arch than Windows. The MSI Laptop I tried gets much less battery life than in Windows. Both Laptops were configured with TLP.
I switched from Ubuntu to Fedora a couple of years ago and I thought (think?) Fedora was faster. Seems this might just have been prejudice on my part as I was grumpy about some of Ubuntu's behavior. Now this might be true in my use case, or not. This points out the importance of testing (which I did not do), rather than relying on subjective feelings. Thanks for your work.
Hey Techhut, it's good to know you are still making videos. 👍Hope everything is going well
It's been busy! Content should pick up. Just graduated university.
@@TechHut Graduation is huge, congrats! You must be feeling so relieved from that. Looking forward to the future videos. I'm currently excited to test out the pop OS cosmic desktop when it comes out to beta.
Can you compare between CutefishOS vs Deepin ?
I don't have comparable machines to test on, but I can say that Windows performance in the wild is vastly different than a test system. I support hundreds of users and it certainly gives me a jaded perspective on the performance of Windows. Decent systems, generally, but they often run slow. I tune them up to make them perform better, but they're not great. Now, I have a Windows computer I use sometimes, for games or to run the LogMeIn cliet that they've failed to provide for Linux for a decade. Mostly RDPing into it from my Linux main computer. And, it's an older PC with a 6th Gen CPU. It seems to run quite well for it's age. Of course, I haven't put Windows 11 on it, so that probably has some bearing. And it's my computer, so conforming to my standards and not loaded with lots of background bloat.
Non-tech people using their Windows PCs are the biggest performance hit is what I'm saying.
would be great to run the arch test in gnome so we can rule out slight performance differences between kde and gnome
i have 11 sec in win 11,, 20 sec in mint "restart"
Most of the time, when switching from Windows to Ubuntu, there tends to be a lot of compatibility issues for me whenever I try to do a Linux sprint for a time. There's just not enough stability for imo for my use case typically. In terms of performance, I have noticed that generally Ubuntu, openSUSE, Fedora...etc, those tend to run faster overall on my machine (and take up fewer resources in general). Its just every time I try to setup drivers, specific games I want to play, and more (like my Index for instance) there is just always some compatibility issue with any Linux flavor I have tried that makes the OS a no-go for me (no matter how much tinkering I try to do to fix it). Love Linux when I've used it...but sadly Linux does not love me back lol. Glad to see though in general that Valve has been doing an excellent job getting Linux compatibility off the ground (and slowly growing market share there).
Well that depends on the graphics card you have.
If u have an nvidia u need to make sure to install the proprietary drivers.
If u have amd u will be fine and don't have to do anything unless u have problems.. (wich most likely will never happen unless u didn't do updates for years)
When it comes to gaming u can almost get any game running as long as it doesn't have easy anti-cheat. And yes some games WILL get u to your limit in order to work (but that's part of the fun (and the learning curve) I guess)
mine fedora already has kernel 6.7.4 for few days ... i wonder when mesa 24 ?
In my opinion Endeavor is a pretty bad experience, I rate it worse than Mankato. I just don't like the default behaviors at all and it's also bloated feeling. Regular Arch with the stuff I need, configured to my liking, is miles better than anything else
on EndeavourOS installing using BTRFS automatically selects zstd disk compression and it will be the smaller install from that point forward (yes, zstd is great)
im still here booting into windows 5 minutes after i press the power button, then another 5-10 minutes to wait for windows to finish with it's background thingies
Boot speeds is all going to depend on your computer so I don't see how that's a fair test
I have moved to Linux several years back. Windows did drive me crazy with those "update" notice. Come in to work and today it had to be update time. The download times on windows are terrible. So sometimes one hour later i can start my job on a crappy windows machine. So never ever windows again...
You really shoulda ran pure arch. Endeavor is nice for easy setup but you can get arch faster with a pure install.
Linux-zen kernel is more lightweight for example.
Running a window manager generally is also much faster.
I run arch pure w/qtile on most of my machines & it boots in less than like 8 seconds
What versions of the kernel did the 3 Linux machines have? If it is a new CPU, battery life should be better on new kernels.
But, why compare the LTS version of Ubuntu instead of just Mantic Minotaur vs Fedora 39?
Why Windows has OpenGL and DirectX but Linus had only OpenGL? Aren't supposed to be there a vulkan too? ( Which performance better on linux that OpenGL )
I think booting up on windows is pretty fast fresh after installation, especially with just a few things installed. when you have it work ready, with office, maybe discord steam and things the booting takes a lot longer. this is my experience. i switched from windows to manjaro and arch btw after that and it made a huge impact. especially on bare arch. i used the same programs as in windows and my booting time went from almost 2min 30s to windows desktop to around 50 seconds. with the exception that when i am on the desktop in arch everything is loaded. an i could start right away. whereas in windows i have to wait a few minutes for it to be fully usable.
It will take longer but you could consider calculating the storage of preinstalled programs to get a better picture of the size of the OS.
Of course the real benchmark is how long it takes a real person to do a real task. It's a very niche situation where the user is specifically waiting on the machine to do something these days. It's more about how long does it take to install specific software, get things to work, etc. If I benchmarked how long it takes to install and get games working, Windows would blow linux out of the water almost every time. If it were for building and running apps, Linux would win handily. As far as why Gimp and some others take so much longer on windows, I don't know for sure if this is the cause -- but I know threads and subprocesses take WAY longer to spin on on windows than on linux.
¡Excelente video! Gracias bro
Yo me cambié a Ubuntu hace 4 años, y ha sido la mejor decisión que he tomado en cuanto a uso de mi equipo se refiere. Tú lo ratificas hoy con tus pruebas.
Fuerte abrazo y bendiciones desde Venezuela
In the battery test looks like fedora was on lower volume than the others maybe helped with battery
For arch, you can get a way lower space footprint if you install a more minimal initial packageset during the setup; e.g. just installing GNOME + base stuff, or plasma + base stuff - a base plasma system can take up less than 6GB in many cases. I have a feeling that using endeavouros may have also affected boot times significantly
this is a pacman -S plasma-desktop moment
I switched from OSX and Windows to Linux as my work daily driver. There was a pretty noticeable increase in the speed applications would load and running especially using i3WM with very little bells and whistles.
Unfortunately, Linux isn't perfect as a work daily driver due to the amount of Windows/OSX products I have to use like Active Directory and Horos, but it's still nice to get away from Windows and OSX for a while.
Use Garuda Linux in latest version and keep updating it, Linux improves a lot with every updates
Could you give a pros and cons with twingate vs wireguard?
Would be interesting to see which filesystems the different Linuxes were installed to and if baremetal or LVM is used. I am sure this makes a difference in the test results.
Man I reboot LMDE6 and it's rebooted in less than 20 seconds.
on the same hardware?
Interested to see these benchmarks, but with wsl2 included
As someone who has done his fair share of distro hopping, kinda surprised by the results. I still prefer Fedora, over everything I've tried
What smartphone is that?