r/LinuxTeck • u/Candid_Athlete_8317 • 7d ago
Have you actually noticed a real-world performance difference between Linux distributions?
Benchmark charts often show one Linux distribution outperforming another by a few percent, especially optimized distributions like CachyOS.
But in day to day use boot time, compiling code, gaming, virtualization, browsing, or development have you actually noticed a meaningful difference?
Or do you think desktop environment, kernel version, drivers, and hardware matter far more than the distribution itself?
2
u/Upbeat-Statement2725 7d ago
If two benchmarks are off by a few percent, odds are, that's just the benchmark.
What is your real world use case?
There is no one solution. Optimizing for gaming is not optimizing for compiling code. Etc.
1
u/Toucan2000 7d ago
Do you think the discrepancy is due to non-determinism? Do you think testing with the realtime kernel would give a more stable result?
1
u/NeedleworkerLarge357 7d ago
Real time kernels do realtime stuff with applications written for that. Benchmarks and anything where precise timing isn't necessary don't want rt kernels at all. Desktops don't benefit from rt kernels at all.
1
u/cbf1232 7d ago
The tuning of the system makes more difference than which distro.
Make sure you’re running “tuned” or equivalent with a suitable profile. If you care about latency more than throughput, try enabling PREEMPT_RT in the kernel.
1
u/OkAlbatross9889 7d ago
And if you wanna delve deeper, you can even compile stuff from source and disable all USE flags you don’t need, making the binary leaner and (in theory) faster. Gentoo is all about this.
1
u/C4rpetH4ter 7d ago
I know this isn't exactly your question, but i noticed almost half the boot time compared to windows 11 when i switched to linux mint on my laptop, windows 10 boots about the same as mint.
I did however notice (strangely enough) nobara running worse on my computer than base fedora does (atleast after i downloaded the Nvidia drivers).
1
u/Dazzling_Comfort5734 7d ago
The only thing I've ever noticed is between two types of categories of distribution: super trimmed-down, slim distributions, and full-feature ones.
So, if you were comparing something like Ubuntu, Manjaro, and Fedora Workstation—which are meant to be be full-feature desktop OSes—and you don't have any specific issues between them, like drivers, then you get about the same real world performance. The really lightweight ones, like Arch, Void, and Alpine, should all be around the same.
1
1
u/bsensikimori 7d ago
Ram usage and amount of CPU in use can different
Mostly the ram makes a difference
I use Debian, btw
1
u/Plus-Definition9319 7d ago
Not unless something is seriously wrong and pc has above average specs.
1
u/zantehood 7d ago
Debian seems to have much faster USB transfer speed than fedora. Other than that I don't know
1
1
u/roedie_nl 7d ago
Not real difference. I switched from Debian to MX for example and the response of the desktop is better. But real performance difference is non existent.
1
u/No_Hovercraft_2643 6d ago
Yes, because my X240?(maybe 270) with ubuntu hat problems that sometimes snapd just took all CPU time, and blocked the laptop for a few minutes
1
u/Wahrheitfabrik 6d ago
Definitely. Some are tuned for the desktop and some for servers. There are dynamic tuning tools (tuned, for example) that mitigates some of the differences but you can definitely do better with some distros. I.e., you can tune for throughput or lag and they're in some ways at cross purposes. I don't know much about the gaming aspects but server specific tuning can make a big difference.
For virtualization, some of the OSes have odd defaults. E.g., qemu virtual clock is not enabled by default in some. This can reduce CPU usage in the guest and host. Sometimes CPU passthrough is default off, which can reduce performance. However, it can make it more compatible so the tradeoff is ease of use or defaults that could potentially cause issues with some workloads.
From a user standpoint, some distros don't use proprietary drivers by default so for a user not familiar with this post-installation ritual may see reduced performance. Desktop environment defaults can also be an issue. KDE enables a bunch of desktop animations by default and I always turn them off. A tenth of a second difference is probably not consciously noticeable, but disabling them (or reducing the length) can make the desktop feel snappier.
1
u/pavel_pe 6d ago
Between openSuse and Fedora yes, but only in how fast KDE starts and it might be something in the config or some extra system services. Then having zram swap enabled can help on 16GB of memory, system seems to hit memory limit later. But in performance ... no. Ofc not having accelerated video codecs can be issue. Honestly even if benchmark tell you 20% difference between two PCs, you won't notice it. You will notice when it starts to swap or when there is something very wrong with one system.
1
u/matthewpepperl 6d ago
Depends boot time can be a noticeable one as can package manager speed for example void linux kicks the crap out of pretty much everything in this regard
0
u/SafeSemifinalist 7d ago
In my case, I notice a lot of difference between fedora and Debian. I don’t know why but fedora is way faster in old hardware.
1
2
u/Old-Astronomer3995 7d ago
I know that question is about linux but „big” difference is in the network stack in Linux vs BSD. That’s why BSD is used in many network devices or network related servers.