10 minutes ago, Humpty said:

Please try it yourself first before you claim a 50%

It could be way more than that (on systems with more cores being unused - e.g. my 5900X) or hardly any difference (e.g. on 4 core 4 thread systems).

That is one benchmark, in a discussion about how windows home/pros thread scheduler can not make effective use of multicore hardware - when fps should be doubling because you have twice as many cores, windows barely manages single digit improvements, you can look at pretty much any non windows server benchmark and see this.

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by mSparks

3 minutes ago, mSparks said:

It could be way more than that (on systems with more cores being unused - e.g. my 5900X) or hardly any difference (e.g. on 4 core 4 thread systems).

That is one benchmark, in a discussion about how windows home/pros thread scheduler can not make effective use of multicore hardware - when fps should be doubling because you have twice as many cores, windows barely manages single digit improvements, you can look at pretty much any non windows server benchmark and see this.

just try it and then tell us.

You are word not allowed of the fact that i am dual booting both and using Xp11 on both.

Over and Out.

@Humpty  Could you do the test sparky described a few pages earlier on your installations? Doesn't take much time once you booted everything up 🙂1080p and no plugins/addons and all sliders to the left? That would actually be more interesting generally than just me doing it on windows as I don't have an XP Linux installation.

I am aware it isn't really a decisive test regarding our discussion here, it would just be interesting if it's even possible to achieve those fps in Linux and then of course how windows fares.

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by rka

41 minutes ago, Humpty said:

just try it and then tell us.

You are word not allowed of the fact that i am dual booting both and using Xp11 on both.

Over and Out.

The last time I tried it was around 2010, on two dell R710s (total of 24 cores 48 threads), centOS was taking a day to finish the calculations, windows Pro was still going after 7 days.

Each CentOS was doing

Windows (7 IIRC) Pro was barely maxing 4 of them on each machine.

This is what Multicore "is a server only thing" on windows means.

Normally, your average users wouldn't notice this, because they are using single threaded games doing really basic calculations that take fractions of a second, it is however also important when you are simulating airflow and forces around a solid object like X-Plane does, because the requirements from the thread scheduler are the same.

I've also seen it from XForce PC only testing windows and saying CPU doesn't make much difference for XPlane,

yet going from 4 cores 8 threads 2700k to 12 cores 24 threads 5900Xmy CPU time fell from all the way down to 0.004ms as those pics when previously I was getting 100fps/0.01ms (and windows users are still stuck down in the 50fps range even on similar hardware)

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by mSparks

32 minutes ago, rka said:

@Humpty  Could you do the test sparky described a few pages earlier on your installations? Doesn't take much time once you booted everything up 🙂1080p and no plugins/addons and all sliders to the left? That would actually be more interesting generally than just me doing it on windows as I don't have an XP Linux installation.

I am aware it isn't really a decisive test regarding our discussion here, it would just be interesting if it's even possible to achieve those fps in Linux and then of course how windows fares.

Well there is nothing that needs testing , if it was real that Linux XP11 performance is 50% better than the one's using XP on Linux would have an orgasm 😁. And why would I test in the first place ? i have been using Xp on both since a few years now.  

@jarmstro did that test , there is whole thread for that.
 

I suggest dual boot and try it yourself. Maybe msparks has a magic linux distro he can give ya 😁

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by Humpty

21 minutes ago, mSparks said:

The last time I tried it was around 2010, on two dell R710s (total of 24 cores 48 threads), centOS was taking a day to finish the calculations, windows Pro was still going after 7 days.

Each CentOS was doing

Windows (7 IIRC) Pro was barely maxing 4 of them on each machine.

This is what Multicore "is a server only thing" on windows means.

Normally, your average users wouldn't notice this, because they are using single threaded games doing really basic calculations that take fractions of a second, it is however also important when you are simulating airflow and forces around a solid object like X-Plane does, because the requirements from the thread scheduler are the same.

I've also seen it from XForce PC only testing windows and saying CPU doesn't make much difference for XPlane,

yet going from 4 cores 8 threads 2700k to 12 cores 24 threads 5900Xmy CPU time fell from all the way down to 0.004ms as those pics when previously I was getting 100fps/0.01ms

Honestly speaking , you are jumping around different things. 

you can't compare a 2700k to a 5900x , I am not sure how fast the 5900x is from the 2700k in a single thread but I believe it would be much faster.

Firstly , please post some vids / shots of scenery with your fps counter and then try the same in Windows

28 minutes ago, Humpty said:

Honestly speaking , you are jumping around different things. 

you can't compare a 2700k to a 5900x , I am not sure how fast the 5900x is from the 2700k in a single thread but I believe it would be much faster.

Firstly , please post some vids / shots of scenery with your fps counter and then try the same in Windows

Well here's the one I did for the 2700k a few years ago

Not found a windows machine that can beat that yet, what chance do you think they have of beating my 5900X?

Which now:

I've got like 100GB of free space left on my drive, windows doesn't support btrfs, thats not enough space for a windows install and X-Plane.

Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
devtmpfs         16G     0   16G   0% /dev
tmpfs            16G  322M   16G   3% /dev/shm
tmpfs           6.3G  2.2M  6.3G   1% /run
/dev/sda3       893G  798G   94G  90% /
tmpfs            16G   16M   16G   1% /tmp
/dev/sda3       893G  798G   94G  90% /home
/dev/sda2       976M  327M  583M  36% /boot
/dev/sda1       599M   14M  585M   3% /boot/efi
tmpfs           3.2G  180K  3.2G   1% /run/user/1000

 

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by mSparks

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

Well here's the one I did for the 2700k a few years ago

Not found a windows machine that can beat that yet, what chance do you think they have of beating my 5900X?

Which now:

I've got like 100GB of free space left on my drive, windows doesn't support btrfs, thats not enough space for a windows install and X-Plane.

Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
devtmpfs         16G     0   16G   0% /dev
tmpfs            16G  322M   16G   3% /dev/shm
tmpfs           6.3G  2.2M  6.3G   1% /run
/dev/sda3       893G  798G   94G  90% /
tmpfs            16G   16M   16G   1% /tmp
/dev/sda3       893G  798G   94G  90% /home
/dev/sda2       976M  327M  583M  36% /boot
/dev/sda1       599M   14M  585M   3% /boot/efi
tmpfs           3.2G  180K  3.2G   1% /run/user/1000

 

Don't install Windows 11! If you do you can no longer dual boot which is sadly the position I find myself in. I would quite like to have tried out that Linux distro which has native NVidia support but now I can't which is pretty preposterous really.

As far as Win11 goes it's a complete anti climax. Apart from curved window edges and a few new fonts I can't see any difference whatsoever?

Did you try to reinstall the Linux bootloader?

The most remarkable Win11 change so far is that the beautiful wallpapers are gone. But never mind if that fixes some UEFI malware.

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

I can't see any difference whatsoever?

I do see one difference

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

you can no longer dual boot

___

1 hour ago, Mike44 said:

Did you try to reinstall the Linux bootloader?

AIUI, You can't dual boot linux windows 11, because windows 11 requires secure boot enabled to boot, and Linux (at least with an nvidia card) wont boot with secure boot enabled.

____

Here's the same thing on my current machine on 11.55r2

 

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by mSparks

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

I do see one difference

___

AIUI, You can't dual boot linux windows 11, because windows 11 requires secure boot enabled to boot, and Linux (at least with an nvidia card) wont boot with secure boot enabled.

____

Here's the same thing on my current machine on 11.55r2

 

Yes your load time is amazing no doubt , but as I said it's best to put up a similar Windows system and then compare.  

put me wrong and show me windows too

SAME CONFIG / SAME EVERYTHING.

If I see that difference I will never use XP on Windows 

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by Humpty

34 minutes ago, Humpty said:

put me wrong and show me windows too

SAME CONFIG / SAME EVERYTHING.

you quite clearly said already

Those videos quite clearly show that linux already maxes out all cores and has been for years.

What do you think is in doubt here? doing twice as much in the same time gives you twice as many frames per second. Linux does multithreading and cpu utilisation - well - windows doesnt, which is why your 10 year old machine was getting 25-40fps while my my 10year old machine was doing 80 to 100fps, now my 1 year old 12 core linux machine is doing 200 to 250fps and windows users barely use 3 cores and sticks at like 45 to 50 fps:

I dont believe I could set windows up better than Micheal.

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by mSparks

3 minutes ago, mSparks said:

you quite clearly said already

Those videos quite clearly show that linux already maxes out all cores and has been for years.

What do you think is in doubt here? doing twice as much in the same time gives you twice as many frames per second. Linux does multithreading and cpu utilisation - well - windows doesnt, which is why your 10 year old machine was getting 25-40fps while my my 10year old machine was doing 80 to 100fps, now my 1 year old machine is doing 200 to 250fps and windows users barely use 3 and stick at like 45 to 50 fps:

I dont believe I could set windows up better than Micheal.

Huh, what wrong did I say ? Only the Flight Model of XP is multi-threaded and not the Sim as a whole , you really don't know what you are reading and understanding. 

My 10 year old machine was an AMD FX 4300 / RX 550 2Gb / 12 GB and your 10 year old machine was a 2700k, which is faster ? 🤔

Just because you can't prove your point , you search the forum and link a post that clearly states that Austin did confirm to that only the flight model is multi-threaded.  

I have never said Linux is not multi-threaded as an OS 🙄

Dude  either prove it and make me stick to Linux for X-plane  or stop posting nonsense.  

BTW whatever the debate we have here should never go personal I hope. Like it does for some.

9 minutes ago, Humpty said:

Huh, what wrong did I say ?

you didnt. I completely agree with all of you.

On windows home or pro xplane cant really get more than 50fps regardless of the hardware.

__

whereas linux gets up to 250fps on the ground on high end hardware.

because windows sticks at using 3 cores (per michaels tests) while linux is using 12 to 15 (per mine)

making linux 4 to 5 times faster on a 12 core machine

and

twice as fast on a 6 core machine

This also applies to windows vs macos and windows vs android and windows vs ios.

which is why an 8 core 1.5ghz android phone has no problem getting 60fps on xplane, dispite having less than half the single core perf of even your 10yo machine.

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by mSparks

2 minutes ago, mSparks said:

you didnt. I completely agree with all of you.

On windows home or pro xplane cant really get more than 50fps regardless of the hardware.

__

whereas linux gets up to 250fps on high end hardware.

because windows sticks at using 3 cores (per michaels tests) while linux is using 12 to 15 (per mine)

making linux 4 to 5 times faster on a 12 core machine

and

twice as fast on a 6 core machine

This also applies to windows vs macos and windows vs android and windows vs ios.

which is why an 8 core 1.5ghz android phone has no problem getting 60fps on xplane.

I am using a Ryzen 1600x now , i see no performance difference , maybe 10% , the governor is on performance. 

It may get upto 250 fps but unless it's  proven against a similar config one can't say it's that faster than windows.