Thread Subject: 64-bit : Vista vs Linux

Hi,

I wanted to get the experience of other people regarding the
performance of 64-bit OS's vista and Fedora Core.

I have a quad-core hp workstation running 64-bit Vista (8 GB
RAM) and I have Linux Fedora Core 8 (64-bit) on a dual core
regular hp desktop with 8 GB RAM.

I am running matlab analysis of very memory intensive and
also involving lot of disk reading to perform calculations
on about 3000 images. I am using the exact same code on both
platforms.

To my surprise, I get 2x better performance on the above
linux OS as compared to the above vista. The time I am
talking about is, 3100 sec (vista) vs 1700 sec (linux) for
the calculations.

I would like to know about the experience of other people. I
am almost tempted to ditch vista and install 64-bit linux on
 the quad-core hardware.

PS: I have enabled multiple threading in matlab for both
cases. So basically the conditions are exactly identical.

Thanks.

Suresh

"Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I wanted to get the experience of other people regarding the
> performance of 64-bit OS's vista and Fedora Core.
>
> I have a quad-core hp workstation running 64-bit Vista (8 GB
> RAM) and I have Linux Fedora Core 8 (64-bit) on a dual core
> regular hp desktop with 8 GB RAM.
>
> I am running matlab analysis of very memory intensive and
> also involving lot of disk reading to perform calculations
> on about 3000 images. I am using the exact same code on both
> platforms.
>
> To my surprise, I get 2x better performance on the above
> linux OS as compared to the above vista. The time I am
> talking about is, 3100 sec (vista) vs 1700 sec (linux) for
> the calculations.
>
> I would like to know about the experience of other people. I
> am almost tempted to ditch vista and install 64-bit linux on
> the quad-core hardware.
>
> PS: I have enabled multiple threading in matlab for both
> cases. So basically the conditions are exactly identical.

Please post the exact information on the processors in the two machines.
For such a large difference, I assume the processors are different
architectures. For instance, an older dual-core Xeon will be much
slower than a newer Intel Core 2 Duo, even with identical clock speeds.
An AMD will be different yet.

You also mention disk reads. You might be bottlenecked at I/O, and
there again, Linux might be somewhat more efficient on identical
hardware, but you haven't yet established that the disk systems are
identical, or even similar.

-Peter

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the post.

The hardware details are:

Vista Hardware:
2 x Intel dual core Xeon 3.0 GHZ
8 GB 667 MHz RAM
Hard disk: SATA

Linux hardware:
1 x Intel Core Duo 2.33 GHz
8 GB 800 MHz RAM
Hard disk: SATA (similar specs)

I run the same Matlab code on both machines and I have the
multi-threading enabled in Matlab-preferences.

On windows, I see 2 CPU's at 25% and the other two has no
load at all.
On Linux, 1 CPU is at 90% or so and the other is changing
between 50-90%.

Thanks.

Suresh



Peter Boettcher <boettcher@ll.mit.edu> wrote in message
<muyr6cy80qi.fsf@G99-Boettcher.llan.ll.mit.edu>...
> "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted to get the experience of other people regarding the
> > performance of 64-bit OS's vista and Fedora Core.
> >
> > I have a quad-core hp workstation running 64-bit Vista (8 GB
> > RAM) and I have Linux Fedora Core 8 (64-bit) on a dual core
> > regular hp desktop with 8 GB RAM.
> >
> > I am running matlab analysis of very memory intensive and
> > also involving lot of disk reading to perform calculations
> > on about 3000 images. I am using the exact same code on both
> > platforms.
> >
> > To my surprise, I get 2x better performance on the above
> > linux OS as compared to the above vista. The time I am
> > talking about is, 3100 sec (vista) vs 1700 sec (linux) for
> > the calculations.
> >
> > I would like to know about the experience of other people. I
> > am almost tempted to ditch vista and install 64-bit linux on
> > the quad-core hardware.
> >
> > PS: I have enabled multiple threading in matlab for both
> > cases. So basically the conditions are exactly identical.
>
> Please post the exact information on the processors in the
two machines.
> For such a large difference, I assume the processors are
different
> architectures. For instance, an older dual-core Xeon will
be much
> slower than a newer Intel Core 2 Duo, even with identical
clock speeds.
> An AMD will be different yet.
>
> You also mention disk reads. You might be bottlenecked at
I/O, and
> there again, Linux might be somewhat more efficient on
identical
> hardware, but you haven't yet established that the disk
systems are
> identical, or even similar.
>
> -Peter

"Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> writes:

> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks for the post.
>
> The hardware details are:
>
> Vista Hardware:
> 2 x Intel dual core Xeon 3.0 GHZ
> 8 GB 667 MHz RAM
> Hard disk: SATA
>
> Linux hardware:
> 1 x Intel Core Duo 2.33 GHz
> 8 GB 800 MHz RAM
> Hard disk: SATA (similar specs)

The RAM speeds are probably a big deal, since you are doing
memory-intensive work.

For the disks, when you say similar specs, you mean single 7200rpm hard
drives on each system? Same capacities? This stuff can matter, since
different capacities often mean different number of platters in the
physical drive, which can change throughput to the media.

Processors, also getting there, but still not enough detail. Intel has
called many processors "Xeon" over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors

I think you probaby have a Paxville or Tulsa core, both of which would
be based on the NetBurst architecture, which was lousy.

Really, the only way to track this stuff down is via benchmarks.
Benchmark the processors alone. MATLAB bench is not bad for this.
Benchmark the disks alone. Etc.

-Peter

Hi Peter,

You are right about the memory being faster and that is a direct factor in
what I am doing. But still I cannot explain a factor of 2 in speed other than
the fact the Linux OS handles resources much better than Windows.


Vista Hardware:
Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 4 MB L2
cache EX615AV
Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 4 MB L2
cache (2nd) EX616AV
HP 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667 ECC FBD RK355AV
HP 250GB SATA 3Gb/s NCQ 7200 (1st) EM060AV

Linux Hardware:
2.33 GHz Intel Core Duo
8 GB DDR2-8 MHz RAM
Hard disk same speed as well as capacity.
Thanks.

Suresh





Peter Boettcher <boettcher@ll.mit.edu> wrote in message
<muyfxtd98np.fsf@G99-Boettcher.llan.ll.mit.edu>...
> "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> writes:
>
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > Thanks for the post.
> >
> > The hardware details are:
> >
> > Vista Hardware:
> > 2 x Intel dual core Xeon 3.0 GHZ
> > 8 GB 667 MHz RAM
> > Hard disk: SATA
> >
> > Linux hardware:
> > 1 x Intel Core Duo 2.33 GHz
> > 8 GB 800 MHz RAM
> > Hard disk: SATA (similar specs)
>
> The RAM speeds are probably a big deal, since you are doing
> memory-intensive work.
>
> For the disks, when you say similar specs, you mean single 7200rpm hard
> drives on each system? Same capacities? This stuff can matter, since
> different capacities often mean different number of platters in the
> physical drive, which can change throughput to the media.
>
> Processors, also getting there, but still not enough detail. Intel has
> called many processors "Xeon" over the years.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors
>
> I think you probaby have a Paxville or Tulsa core, both of which would
> be based on the NetBurst architecture, which was lousy.
>
> Really, the only way to track this stuff down is via benchmarks.
> Benchmark the processors alone. MATLAB bench is not bad for this.
> Benchmark the disks alone. Etc.
>
> -Peter

"Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message <fulolp$982
$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Hi Peter,
>
> You are right about the memory being faster and that is a
direct factor in
> what I am doing. But still I cannot explain a factor of 2
in speed other than
> the fact the Linux OS handles resources much better than
Windows.
>
>
> Vista Hardware:
> Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz
FSB 4 MB L2
> cache EX615AV
> Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz
FSB 4 MB L2
> cache (2nd) EX616AV
> HP 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667 ECC FBD RK355AV
> HP 250GB SATA 3Gb/s NCQ 7200 (1st) EM060AV
>
> Linux Hardware:
> 2.33 GHz Intel Core Duo
> 8 GB DDR2-8 MHz RAM
> Hard disk same speed as well as capacity.
> Thanks.
>
> Suresh
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Boettcher <boettcher@ll.mit.edu> wrote in message
> <muyfxtd98np.fsf@G99-Boettcher.llan.ll.mit.edu>...
> > "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> writes:
> >
> > > Hi Peter,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the post.
> > >
> > > The hardware details are:
> > >
> > > Vista Hardware:
> > > 2 x Intel dual core Xeon 3.0 GHZ
> > > 8 GB 667 MHz RAM
> > > Hard disk: SATA
> > >
> > > Linux hardware:
> > > 1 x Intel Core Duo 2.33 GHz
> > > 8 GB 800 MHz RAM
> > > Hard disk: SATA (similar specs)
> >
> > The RAM speeds are probably a big deal, since you are
doing
> > memory-intensive work.
> >
> > For the disks, when you say similar specs, you mean
single 7200rpm hard
> > drives on each system? Same capacities? This stuff
can matter, since
> > different capacities often mean different number of
platters in the
> > physical drive, which can change throughput to the
media.
> >
> > Processors, also getting there, but still not enough
detail. Intel has
> > called many processors "Xeon" over the years.
> >
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocess
ors
> >
> > I think you probaby have a Paxville or Tulsa core, both
of which would
> > be based on the NetBurst architecture, which was lousy.
> >
> > Really, the only way to track this stuff down is via
benchmarks.
> > Benchmark the processors alone. MATLAB bench is not
bad for this.
> > Benchmark the disks alone. Etc.
> >
> > -Peter
>
>

How about MATLAB bench results? Do you still get a factor
of 2 performance difference?

Yi

Hi Yi,

Actually the benchmark shows that the 2 machines should be
very similar.

Suresh


"Yi Cao" <y.cao@cranfield.ac.uk> wrote in message
<fulpra$k3f$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message <fulolp$982
> $1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > You are right about the memory being faster and that is a
> direct factor in
> > what I am doing. But still I cannot explain a factor of 2
> in speed other than
> > the fact the Linux OS handles resources much better than
> Windows.
> >
> >
> > Vista Hardware:
> > Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz
> FSB 4 MB L2
> > cache EX615AV
> > Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz
> FSB 4 MB L2
> > cache (2nd) EX616AV
> > HP 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667 ECC FBD RK355AV
> > HP 250GB SATA 3Gb/s NCQ 7200 (1st) EM060AV
> >
> > Linux Hardware:
> > 2.33 GHz Intel Core Duo
> > 8 GB DDR2-8 MHz RAM
> > Hard disk same speed as well as capacity.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Suresh
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter Boettcher <boettcher@ll.mit.edu> wrote in message
> > <muyfxtd98np.fsf@G99-Boettcher.llan.ll.mit.edu>...
> > > "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> writes:
> > >
> > > > Hi Peter,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the post.
> > > >
> > > > The hardware details are:
> > > >
> > > > Vista Hardware:
> > > > 2 x Intel dual core Xeon 3.0 GHZ
> > > > 8 GB 667 MHz RAM
> > > > Hard disk: SATA
> > > >
> > > > Linux hardware:
> > > > 1 x Intel Core Duo 2.33 GHz
> > > > 8 GB 800 MHz RAM
> > > > Hard disk: SATA (similar specs)
> > >
> > > The RAM speeds are probably a big deal, since you are
> doing
> > > memory-intensive work.
> > >
> > > For the disks, when you say similar specs, you mean
> single 7200rpm hard
> > > drives on each system? Same capacities? This stuff
> can matter, since
> > > different capacities often mean different number of
> platters in the
> > > physical drive, which can change throughput to the
> media.
> > >
> > > Processors, also getting there, but still not enough
> detail. Intel has
> > > called many processors "Xeon" over the years.
> > >
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocess
> ors
> > >
> > > I think you probaby have a Paxville or Tulsa core, both
> of which would
> > > be based on the NetBurst architecture, which was lousy.
> > >
> > > Really, the only way to track this stuff down is via
> benchmarks.
> > > Benchmark the processors alone. MATLAB bench is not
> bad for this.
> > > Benchmark the disks alone. Etc.
> > >
> > > -Peter
> >
> >
>
> How about MATLAB bench results? Do you still get a factor
> of 2 performance difference?
>
> Yi

[Please post your responses at the end, after trimming from the quoted
material]

"Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> writes:

> "Yi Cao" <y.cao@cranfield.ac.uk> wrote in message
> <fulpra$k3f$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
>
>> "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message <fulolp$982
>> $1@fred.mathworks.com>...
>> >
>> > You are right about the memory being faster and that is a direct
>> > factor in what I am doing. But still I cannot explain a factor of 2
>> > in speed other than the fact the Linux OS handles resources much
>> > better than Windows.
>> >
>> >
>> > Vista Hardware:
>> > Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz
>> > FSB 4 MB L2
>> > cache EX615AV
>> > Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz
>> > FSB 4 MB L2
>> > cache (2nd) EX616AV
>> > HP 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667 ECC FBD RK355AV
>> > HP 250GB SATA 3Gb/s NCQ 7200 (1st) EM060AV
>> >
>> > Linux Hardware:
>> > 2.33 GHz Intel Core Duo
>> > 8 GB DDR2-8 MHz RAM
>> > Hard disk same speed as well as capacity.

>> How about MATLAB bench results? Do you still get a factor
>> of 2 performance difference?

> Actually the benchmark shows that the 2 machines should be
> very similar.

That indicates that your code is bottlenecked somewhere other than at
the CPU. You'll have to keep searching if you want to understand this.
Try some disk benchmark software (iozone, fio, etc). Even if the drives
are the same, there could still be a difference in filesystems, location
of the data on disk, caching/readahead algorithms at the OS level, etc.

-Peter

Hi Peter,

I wanted to understand this better. I am thinking of rebuilding the vista
hardware with Linux and do a direct comparison that way. I just want the best
performance and matlab runs equally well on Linux too (we are not doing any
simulink). I will post my test results later for people who are interested.

Thanks.

Suresh


Peter Boettcher <boettcher@ll.mit.edu> wrote in message
<muylk34n32f.fsf@G99-Boettcher.llan.ll.mit.edu>...
>
> [Please post your responses at the end, after trimming from the quoted
> material]
>
> "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> writes:
>
> > "Yi Cao" <y.cao@cranfield.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > <fulpra$k3f$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> >
> >> "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message <fulolp$982
> >> $1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> >> >
> >> > You are right about the memory being faster and that is a direct
> >> > factor in what I am doing. But still I cannot explain a factor of 2
> >> > in speed other than the fact the Linux OS handles resources much
> >> > better than Windows.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Vista Hardware:
> >> > Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz
> >> > FSB 4 MB L2
> >> > cache EX615AV
> >> > Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz
> >> > FSB 4 MB L2
> >> > cache (2nd) EX616AV
> >> > HP 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667 ECC FBD RK355AV
> >> > HP 250GB SATA 3Gb/s NCQ 7200 (1st) EM060AV
> >> >
> >> > Linux Hardware:
> >> > 2.33 GHz Intel Core Duo
> >> > 8 GB DDR2-8 MHz RAM
> >> > Hard disk same speed as well as capacity.
>
> >> How about MATLAB bench results? Do you still get a factor
> >> of 2 performance difference?
>
> > Actually the benchmark shows that the 2 machines should be
> > very similar.
>
> That indicates that your code is bottlenecked somewhere other than at
> the CPU. You'll have to keep searching if you want to understand this.
> Try some disk benchmark software (iozone, fio, etc). Even if the drives
> are the same, there could still be a difference in filesystems, location
> of the data on disk, caching/readahead algorithms at the OS level, etc.
>
> -Peter

"Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message
<fuo28q$9in$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Hi Peter,
>
> I wanted to understand this better. I am thinking of
rebuilding the vista
> hardware with Linux and do a direct comparison that way.
I just want the best
> performance and matlab runs equally well on Linux too (we
are not doing any
> simulink). I will post my test results later for people
who are interested.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Suresh
>
>
> Peter Boettcher <boettcher@ll.mit.edu> wrote in message
> <muylk34n32f.fsf@G99-Boettcher.llan.ll.mit.edu>...
> >
> > [Please post your responses at the end, after trimming
from the quoted
> > material]
> >
> > "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> writes:
> >
> > > "Yi Cao" <y.cao@cranfield.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > <fulpra$k3f$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > >
> > >> "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message
<fulolp$982
> > >> $1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > >> >
> > >> > You are right about the memory being faster and
that is a direct
> > >> > factor in what I am doing. But still I cannot
explain a factor of 2
> > >> > in speed other than the fact the Linux OS handles
resources much
> > >> > better than Windows.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Vista Hardware:
> > >> > Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz
1333 MHz
> > >> > FSB 4 MB L2
> > >> > cache EX615AV
> > >> > Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz
1333 MHz
> > >> > FSB 4 MB L2
> > >> > cache (2nd) EX616AV
> > >> > HP 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667 ECC FBD RK355AV
> > >> > HP 250GB SATA 3Gb/s NCQ 7200 (1st) EM060AV
> > >> >
> > >> > Linux Hardware:
> > >> > 2.33 GHz Intel Core Duo
> > >> > 8 GB DDR2-8 MHz RAM
> > >> > Hard disk same speed as well as capacity.
> >
> > >> How about MATLAB bench results? Do you still get a
factor
> > >> of 2 performance difference?
> >
> > > Actually the benchmark shows that the 2 machines
should be
> > > very similar.
> >
> > That indicates that your code is bottlenecked somewhere
other than at
> > the CPU. You'll have to keep searching if you want to
understand this.
> > Try some disk benchmark software (iozone, fio, etc).
Even if the drives
> > are the same, there could still be a difference in
filesystems, location
> > of the data on disk, caching/readahead algorithms at
the OS level, etc.
> >
> > -Peter
>
>

I cannot recall exactly, but as I am aware that the file
system of Linux (ext2?) as well as other unix systems is
much more efficient than the one of windows (NTFS, or
FAT32). I guess this is the main reason for you to see the
2x difference since your computation is memory/disk
operation intensive. To comfirm this, you may perform some
tests on large file operations as as load, save, fread,
fwrite, etc on both systems to see the difference.

hth
Yi Cao

"Yi Cao" <y.cao@cranfield.ac.uk> wrote in message <fuo4c9$ltm$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message
> <fuo28q$9in$1@fred.mathworks.com>...


I actually have noticed this problem too. I have quad core Xeon 3.16 GHz with 4GB RAM that performs 60% slower than my hp laptop with T2500 (core dou at 2.0 GHz) for the same matlab code.

When I try matlab's "bench" routine, the Xeon machine is shown to be slower than the Pentum 4 machine!

Best regards, Sakhr.

"Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message <fuo28q$9in$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Hi Peter,
>
> I wanted to understand this better. I am thinking of rebuilding the vista
> hardware with Linux and do a direct comparison that way. I just want the best
> performance and matlab runs equally well on Linux too (we are not doing any
> simulink). I will post my test results later for people who are interested.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Suresh
>
>
> Peter Boettcher <boettcher@ll.mit.edu> wrote in message
> <muylk34n32f.fsf@G99-Boettcher.llan.ll.mit.edu>...
> >
> > [Please post your responses at the end, after trimming from the quoted
> > material]
> >
> > "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> writes:
> >
> > > "Yi Cao" <y.cao@cranfield.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > <fulpra$k3f$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > >
> > >> "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message <fulolp$982
> > >> $1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > >> >
> > >> > You are right about the memory being faster and that is a direct
> > >> > factor in what I am doing. But still I cannot explain a factor of 2
> > >> > in speed other than the fact the Linux OS handles resources much
> > >> > better than Windows.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Vista Hardware:
> > >> > Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz
> > >> > FSB 4 MB L2
> > >> > cache EX615AV
> > >> > Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz
> > >> > FSB 4 MB L2
> > >> > cache (2nd) EX616AV
> > >> > HP 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667 ECC FBD RK355AV
> > >> > HP 250GB SATA 3Gb/s NCQ 7200 (1st) EM060AV
> > >> >
> > >> > Linux Hardware:
> > >> > 2.33 GHz Intel Core Duo
> > >> > 8 GB DDR2-8 MHz RAM
> > >> > Hard disk same speed as well as capacity.
> >
> > >> How about MATLAB bench results? Do you still get a factor
> > >> of 2 performance difference?
> >
> > > Actually the benchmark shows that the 2 machines should be
> > > very similar.
> >
> > That indicates that your code is bottlenecked somewhere other than at
> > the CPU. You'll have to keep searching if you want to understand this.
> > Try some disk benchmark software (iozone, fio, etc). Even if the drives
> > are the same, there could still be a difference in filesystems, location
> > of the data on disk, caching/readahead algorithms at the OS level, etc.
> >
> > -Peter
>
>

Can you please let us know when you have completed this task?

I am in the middle of deciding whether or not I would like to go with Ubuntu 64 or Vista 64. I think in my case I would be going with Ubuntu for I am not in need of anything OS specific. I can always run VMware and have my Windows OS I need! I run the Folding @ home clients on my primary machine (currently setting up on others) but I am not utilizing my 64-bit portion of my CPU.

Well that is just a little background of what I am in the middle of.

~Aaron

Hi Aaron,

I did the test between Vista-64 bit and Redhat Fedora Core 8-64 bit on the exact same hardware which was a hp xw8400, Intel Xeon(R) CPU 5160 3 GHz (2 dual core processors), 8 GB RAM - 533 MHz RAM.

My results show that Fedora runs 1.5x faster than Vista. The code involves lots of image processing. I have switched most of the windows boxes to linux and I am very happy with it.

Hope this helps.

Suresh


"Aaron Smith" <asmit7@yahoo.com> wrote in message <ggi2pl$oqm$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message <fuo28q$9in$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > I wanted to understand this better. I am thinking of rebuilding the vista
> > hardware with Linux and do a direct comparison that way. I just want the best
> > performance and matlab runs equally well on Linux too (we are not doing any
> > simulink). I will post my test results later for people who are interested.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Suresh
> >
> >

"Suresh" <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message <ggpven$3r4$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Hi Aaron,
>
> I did the test between Vista-64 bit and Redhat Fedora Core 8-64 bit on the exact same hardware which was a hp xw8400, Intel Xeon(R) CPU 5160 3 GHz (2 dual core processors), 8 GB RAM - 533 MHz RAM.
>
> My results show that Fedora runs 1.5x faster than Vista. The code involves lots of image processing. I have switched most of the windows boxes to linux and I am very happy with it.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Suresh
>
>
> "Aaron Smith" <asmit7@yahoo.com> wrote in message <ggi2pl$oqm$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message <fuo28q$9in$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > > Hi Peter,
> > >
> > > I wanted to understand this better. I am thinking of rebuilding the vista
> > > hardware with Linux and do a direct comparison that way. I just want the best
> > > performance and matlab runs equally well on Linux too (we are not doing any
> > > simulink). I will post my test results later for people who are interested.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Suresh
> > >
> > >

Hey, Thanks Very Much.

This helps a lot.

I just recently did a test of Ubuntu's 64bit OS from the Live CD (for you who don't know, it is run from the CD, not the Hard disk) I was able to get a great performance gain out of Folding@Home with that over my Windows OS (XP). Exact same hardware here. I am not sure to the specifics. I could do a full out test, but I anyone reading this wants to know about just performance then Linux Bases Distributions are the way to go, but it could all depend on what you want or If you even have the know-how to do it.

Thanks again much Suresh.
This forum has been of much help, by the way, it is one of the first things that come up when you search for "Vista 64 vs Linux 64" under google!

Thanks,
~Aaron