Arch vs ubuntu performance reddit. Arch specially, Debian, Fedora .

Arch vs ubuntu performance reddit Ease-of-use: Arch and Debian are basically the more advanced versions of Manjaro and Ubuntu respectively. Btw what hypervisor do you use and which settings? If kde does not feel snappy, you can probably optimize you settings. Gentoo is mostly source based, Arch binary, so with Gentoo you can set compile time options with USE flags. tl;dr: Because its the software stack that matters, and both distros compile their software more-or-less the same, Arch and Ubuntu performed the same in CPU and graphics intensive tests. So i compared the compile times of my Go program on both. (Arch technically did better by a hair, but not outside the scope of random fluctuations. Fedora finals after Arch beat Ubuntu. Here are This subreddit has gone Restricted and reference-only as part of a mass protest against Reddit's recent API changes, which break third-party apps and moderation tools. There will be missing or disagreement between packages if you install Manjaro; arch-wiki-doc, an offline arch wiki document, is not available from Manjaro. if i wanted out of the box the biggest performance difference is probably the missing futex patch in the linux kernel which can benefit games played via Wine/Proton the latest stable kernel 5. It provides more guidance than the traditional installation method, but it's still a long way from the experience I currently use Arch because of how light it is, but now I am looking at Alpine. To install Arch, "the arch way", you really have to do everything via the terminal, whereas OpenSuse has a simple GUI installer. My main problem is I don't want to go through the installation again, but I also have only 32 gigs of storage. Gentoo is more flexible, with USE flags and being able to choose what packages go into the system. 16 or the zen kernel on Arch Linux includes this patch from VALVe while afaik Ubuntu So my journey started with Antergos, then pure Arch, then Manjaro, then pure Arch, then Endeavour and then Fedora. Ubuntu moves between discrete releases every 6 months, whereas Arch is a rolling-release system. Not to discount Barack Obuntu's great work, but the seeding could've been better. Fedora is also nice but, it's the free and consumer oriented version of RedHat so, its stability is more important than raw performance and being bleeding edge. Yea, that was a headscratcher Sure the snapshot creation and rollback ist faster with btrfs but with ext4 on lvm you have a faster filesystem. Arch will be tough, especially post install configuration. i was wondering if gaming on Arch could be just as good as playing on windows (or similar, atleast compared to Fedora or Linux distributions can get quite complex. Many people start with Ubuntu and switch to Arch, but that is not the only way to learn linux. There’s nothing inherently wrong with an experienced user using Ubuntu or a novice user using Arch. And know the difference between compiling from source and just downloading a binary. When it comes to the arch linux vs ubuntu performance debate, it's essential to remember that performance isn't just about speed. script is another text-based way to install Arch. Good flexibility: It MUST be set up as Ubuntu partitions theirs, otherwise a timeshift restore snapshot will NOT work. One is Debian/Ubuntu-based, one isn't. A number of apps we use stopped supporting CentOS moving forward as rocky came out, and they never picked it back up. Don't know why. You'll get super stable software on Pop. I have used Arch for years, then Nobara for a few months, and now back on Arch. As a result, those who install arch often have an inflated sense of their own competence. Gentoo is a stable distribution with optional bleeding edge, I think Arch is only bleeding edge. So what's the difference if we do that in Windows plus have a normal Linux shell and package manager in our terminal. After looking more into it I am on the fence between Arch and Mint. Also saw a difference between using Gnome, KDE, and Xfce (which had the best speeds --if you use a DE) Get the Reddit app Scan this QR code to download the app now. Ubuntu just does not update their software as fast as Arch will. Manjaro is a good platform to learn how things are done in The difference between arch and ubuntu is *not* performance. These questions are silly, since they're both made for different targets. There are several aspects to note, depending on whether you Not an Arch user btw, but between the two, definitely go with Arch, Debian is just too stale even on testing releases. Your sources have things backwards. Maybe you find the idea of free and open source software intriguing, and worth investigating. Desktop Experience. Like 0-5fps difference from benchmarks I've seen, sometimes even a decrease Arch Linux vs Ubuntu: Performance and Customization. Fedora sits right between Ubuntu and Arch's update philosophies. Fortunately, Arch Linux now has a guided installer, which makes it easier to follow through installing Arch Linux via the terminal. I recently found VoidLinux and I was thinking to change from Arch to Void. Thing is I am also wanting to use my computer, so going even more "raw" (aka LFS, Slack, Gentoo) is out of the question, and Arch never breaks anymore either. Which isn't a problem. Happy to! Made the mistake of delving into Arch too early myself, wasted too much time with it. Clear Linux For Intel Steam Gaming Performance If you are on Arch (based) you can try adding Valve's repo and installing Gamescope & Mangohud from there. 04. Or check it out in the app stores What you're describing is not really about Arch vs. -> no problem if it would "fizzle out". Ubuntu is better FOR ME. Windows 11 seems like a really good operating system until you try to use it, it's really inconsistent UI-wise (it's still better than Windows 10 though), it's pretty good performance-wise but it's running so many processes in the background (many are internet and telemetry). Let me tell you though, the Arch Wiki is absolutely AMAZING. In NixOS you start with booting into a preconfigured system then edit a system configuration file that does everything. The Debian/Ubuntu ecosystem is not known for having the most current packages. Yeah, it runs better on Linux. Arch specially, Debian, Fedora I noticed today that I seem to get really poor network performance in Arch compared to the Ubuntu Desktop live image running on the same machine. There is better performance on a laptop compared to Arch? I have read about how a lot of people claim fedora is easier, but compared to arch, fedora is not that much easier tbh, you have to set up dnf to not be hellish slow, install media codecs, enable dozens of repos and whatnot. I asked help on reddit and they suggested that I use tools like TLP. A rolling release distro featuring a user-friendly installer, tested updates and a community of friendly users for support. Performance Showdown: Arch Linux vs Ubuntu. The wiki has never fully recovered from this event. That does not mean Ubuntu is better. I also don't like how Ubuntu are pushing snap so much, it's starting to feel a tiny bit like a Windows/OSX-esc distro. plus some knowledge, but I still believe Arch is somewhere between Ubuntu or Fedora Like how Ubuntu packages their distro on top of Debian, Manjaro is based on Arch but packages their distro independent of Arch. 5 years or so, with an additional yesr of using linux in general. Comparison of Arch Linux vs Ubuntu LTS detailed comparison as of 2024 and their Pros/Cons. Neither of us have issues getting games running. Arch has a manual installation, while Debian has a GUI installer. From a performance point of view, there is very little. It sounds like you're not too experienced with Linux. Ubuntu used to be really nice. Yes Ubuntu will probably have more installed than you will need- but instead of looking at it as bloat, I look at it as convenience. 3. My Alienware 17 R5 lasts about 3x longer (4-ish hours vs under 90 minutes) light use in Arch than in Windows, and a little under 2x longer with heavier use (90ish minutes vs about 40 min) Ubuntu historically and even today with Mint comming up in that aspect has been the first search entry for "I want to try linux" Ubuntu community is massive, and among those trying Linux first time is very likely that someone encountered same issue you are facing as first timmer, and posted it on ubuntu forum. They are both great distros. Basically, if you want to quickly start playing games, and don't want to deal with the Arch installation process, go Ubuntu (or indeed Antergos), but if you're already familiar with Arch you can definitely go that route, it might give you more options to get a Factors affecting system performance in Arch Linux and Ubuntu. I tend to steer new users to Mint way before Ubuntu. It fetches and installs pre-built packages. I'd also like to be more Try Arch in a VM, see if you like it. I mean we would just use vs code, chrome and a terminal on Linux anyway. That being said, any Linux will be fine, and X/L/Ubuntu are all great. One is pretty much predicated on using Gnome, the other lets you choose you DE. To speak in software development language, Canonical/Ubuntu is like the Cathedral that selects the software for you (duh, with "Canonical" that's almost their damn name LOL), and Arch is like the Bazaar where you have to pick everything yourself - and Arch Linux is arguably the biggest software Bazaar the world has ever seen. Hi, I'm new to VoidLinux. Or check it out in the app stores &nbsp; (but not as bleeding edge as arch as it is a point release distro rather than rolling - uses a 6 month cycle for releases), fedora is good. A standard-minimal Linux install uses maybe 200M of ram at idle and has very little running in the background. Anything GNOME based is basically not going to be lightweight, but it's going to do very well if you have halfway modern hardware (which I assume you do based on your devel/gaming focus). Arch Wiki - Most of the Arch Wiki can also be used on other distros too, I had a problem with Virtualbox on Fedora and also a problem with Discord Flatpak under Ubuntu that Arch Wiki solved :D PopOS is built on top of Ubuntu, which is built on top of Debian. Being way closer to the hardware Arch is A subreddit for the Arch Linux user community for support and useful news. 20. I use Arch at home and Ubuntu at work. Whatever the reasons, they'r Arch Linux and Ubuntu have distinct customization aspects and different levels of performance. ) Arch is "snappier" when it is kept clean and trimmed down. There are several aspects to note, depending on whether you want lightning-fast efficiency or need a personalized Linux What are the key differences between Arch Linux and Ubuntu in terms of system performance? Arch Linux is known for its speed and efficiency, allowing users to build a lean, streamlined system. They're both great though, IMO. Between Gentoo and Arch, the big trade-off is time vs performance. Note: r/ArcBrowser is not affiliated with The Browser Company. From what I understand, pacman can support a rolling cadence as well as a fixed cadence without My problems are mostly with Canonical, rather than specifically with Ubuntu. For immediate help Tried using Arch twice. The performance differences are negligible, Pop might be just sliiiightly heavier because of the extensions it runs on top of GNOME. 04 has just been released and it has close to the latest version of GNOME. If you want one, you need to install one. That said, warts and all, I've had a better experience with Manjaro mostly because of access to the AUR. A versioned release cycle, this places certain guarantees that all packages within one version work well together. that is not the time to learn this! I use Linux exclusively and my Thinkpads get great battery life. (with a lot of minor distro hops in between in the beginning). As far as I know, Arch Linux is less minimal compared to Void Linux, and has with systemd. Still, Ubuntu takes the lead with the convenience. LFS has no package manager. With arch, it's pretty much a blank slate so you have to build everything from the ground up My pick is elementary OS, a flavor of Ubuntu. While this is true, it's not always possible (or easy) to configure them identically. There are many steps, some of which can become quite involved. if you want software that was updated yesterday, and are super bleeding edge, than Ubuntu isn't for you. I use arch. You could've telegraphed the Arch v. For those of us, WSL 2 is a godsend. It's just better for how I use it. And it did improve the battery life. Easy to use and easy to stomach. Fedora? I'm aware of Ubuntu having slightly older Kernel or Mesa than Pop, but I believe the differences shouldn't be too big (<5%), and still, those end up reaching Ubuntu too (or you can just pick a PPA). However, the graphics experience is smoother. It's about how smoothly your system runs, how efficiently it uses resources I‘ve just started my own blog and dedicated my first post towards my experience on Arch vs Ubuntu and that I have found Arch to be consistently more reliable for me than Ubuntu ever has. It is maybe because Ubuntu Arch will preform better - Ubuntu runs a lot of garbage in the background that they install by default and since they started installing things as snaps that slow down the entire machine, The DEs (Cinnamon vs Gnome) are 2 very different DEs. TLP and auto-cpufreq used on both. Uncover the basics, analyze comparative performance, understand why Arch Linux might be your choice for This comparison desktop comparison of Ubuntu vs Arch Linux is hard since both distros can achieve the same look and feel. P. Windows. technically they are not comparable, unofficial user repositories on Arch Linux are much closer to PPAs with the same drawbacks: it's user provided binaries and not from the official repositories which vetted through distro maintainer and security teams anyway the AUR has one "advantage" and thats what it's just a collection of package building scripts Manjaro is a GNU/Linux distribution based on Arch. More like for posting Also difficult for a beginner to choose between x-git x-bin x x-common x-common-git (x= program x) you got the point. This will be my main home machine for music, web browsing, video consumption, school work, and very light gaming. Arc typically receives updates on Thursdays. Ubuntu is good to get started with, Manjaro if Good Choice! I went a route of Raspbian-Ubuntu-Zorin-UbuntuMate-Manjaro-Endeavor-Arch. It's mostly the same stuff under the hood. The very best in my opinion is Arch Linux running Docker with all your media physically attached to the server. Good performance: btrfs is generally fast and efficient, particularly for reading and writing small files. 8GB RAM, 4GB Radeon 290X, 128GB SSD, 1TB HDD, Ubuntu 22. You'll have the latest drivers and software features, and everything is tested for stability before it reaches the end user. and is Honestly, the Arch Wiki comes in handy as well. This might be more of a distro argument over ubuntu/debian vs arch though. In NixOS you continue using the In their own words, Ubuntu is built to “work out of the box and make the installation process as easy as possible for new users”, whilst the motto of Arch Linux is “customize everything”. it's Ubuntu latest version sluggish according to some of comments here and even in the pop os reddit section. I know that Ubuntu and Debian are (apparently) fully supported, but I would prefer to use something arch based. Arc is available on macOS and iOS, with plans to launch on Windows in Spring 2024. If you are interested in it, I would highly appreciate any feedback you can give me, as And if I were to personally recommend a distro, it's Fedora. 04) the performance weirdness happens from Resi 2 ro Resi 8. Let's dive into the heart of the matter: the performance showdown between Arch Linux and Ubuntu. . I don't think the fixed release cadence is the deciding factor; apt can support a rolling cadence (think Debian Unstable) as well as a fixed cadence. These factors can be hardware-related, software-related, or a combination of both. And while I agree with a lot of the other comments here, they're all missing a more fundamental difference. Maybe you've heard of Linux and just want to find out more. I was considering Ubuntu until I heard that Snap package manager is dogsh!t Also Fedora since It's not very easy to use which will help me when switching to Kali and Arch because I heard it has the best package manager among these three which is what matters in a distro Also another thing which is not really important which is customization The amount of dependency checks and package complexity apt has to handle to support all those different fixed releases makes it slow. In your case Arch looks like the correct decision. Setting up Wi-Fi, for example, can prove challenging. It is extremely in-depth and just covers absolutely EVERYTHING and is really easy to read. The . I would go out on a limb and say that is some of the best documentation and can be applied to distros that aren't even Arch based. For example, I'm not sure that I'd ever trust anything Ubuntu or Ubuntu based with a dist-upgrade ever again, based on prior experiences. Imo, this puts it far ahead of Ubuntu's 6 month update cycle and Arch's wild west of update Definitely could go either way. 04 Couple of reasons why one might pick Ubuntu over Arch: Lack of KISS principle, Ubuntu's solutions tend to be more engineered and cover obscure use cases more having Debian as their parent and inhaeriting most of their system tools. One is essentially static, from one release to the next, while one is rolling. Arch gives you finer control over your system (mostly in terms of what's installed and how things are configured) and is more up-to-date than Ubuntu. I've recently been on Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora and Arch and the fluidity is all the same, massive performance difference. If the same stuff is installed on each, and configured identically, they will probably run identically. Ubuntu is very stable and reliable. The only thing missing is systemd really and there are workarounds with or without it. I don't know if the issues I had were Arch "breaking" but I found that eventually Arch would refuse to update because there was always something wrong with a single package that kept everything else from updating. It is terminal based. You're describing UI and UX of the window managers (wm) / desktop environments (de). Nobara does come ready to game OOTB, but a little extra work and Arch works exactly the same. Arch Linux and Ubuntu are both very capable distributions when it comes to performance. I have a feeling that, seeing you are coming from Arch, you will be able to fix any problems that may arise. This article will thoroughly examine the difference between Ubuntu and Arch Linux. Ubuntu: performance. So, on a case-by-case basis some subjects are far better covered in the Gentoo wiki than than the Arch wiki but the Arch wiki has far more content. Ubuntu is ideal for beginners with business purposes, and arch Linux is perfect for professionals for development and programming. To achieve that, Canonical provides a customized GNOME desktop environment experience to make things easy. Kubuntu vs. Even then, the difference in performance is extremely marginal and barely noticeable. Could be because it's lighter than other distros. I don't intend to ever change distros. I started with Linux Mint and everything that runs on Ubuntu could run on Mint; the same will apply to Elementary. Performance wise, and on the same hardware, I see little to no difference in performance between them. Even without I've been using arch on my laptop for college and tinkering for about ±1. : Ubuntu is also nice but, since it's a corporate distro, it's not my first choice. Arch offers a ports-like package build system and the Arch User Repository, where I run Ubuntu (Well actually Mint with Cinnamon) on my laptop (8GB, 7200U) and Arch-Gnome on my desktop (32Gb, 7700K). The difference is that in Arch at some point you load Pacman and then load packages off AUR, and possibly containers like AppImage or Flatpaks if necessary. Just that it's not meant to be used the same as regular repos. S. He said he was moving from Ubuntu to Arch, didn't mention that he was dumb as a sack of bricks. I have better performance with my drivers in arch but some games run better with the more holistic debian ecosystem, That's my motto. I use lvm snapshots only for the root partition (/var, /home and /boot are on a different partitions) and I have a pacman hook that does a snapshot when doing an upgrade, install or when removing packages (it takes about 2 seconds). I have been used Arch for a long time, like 2 years. There's plenty other distros that can do all the same with less headache and a larger community. First in a virtual machine on my laptop, secondly on actual hardware but on an older machine. The best speeds I have seen under Arch. This is similar to Arch. The compile times had at best a 3 to 5% difference, and ironically sometimes WSL2 was faster then Linux. Plus, the fact that Ubuntu is now forcing their users to use snaps right out of the box where Mint is using the regular software coming from the distros repositories. It's like using native Windows apps. When it comes to the Arch Linux vs Ubuntu performance comparison, several factors can influence the overall system performance. Arch is better for people use it for its strengths. Get the Reddit app Scan this QR code to download the app now. This comparison desktop comparison of Ubuntu vs Arch Linux is hard since both distros can achieve the same look and feel. I’m considering installing Arch Linux to my Raspberry Pi and try it out there, I already have Ubuntu on my laptop and I like the ease of use, but I read somewhere that using Ubuntu is like buying a pre built desktop and using Arch is Ehhh, not really. Docker is easy to setup, backup (I have daily and weekly backups running on cron) and restore. I never claimed the AUR was bad. Honestly, most flavors of Linux are similar enough that you can do the same stuff in all of them, the difference is what's pre-installed (packages, Desktop environments, etc. Both feel smooth and there is no noticeable difference in performance. Ubuntu vs. But, as already mentioned, due to differences between ARCH and Manjaro, heavy reliance on the AUR can cause breakage. Thing is, minimalistic as used by arch devs doesn't mean what they think it means. I'm looking towards flipping a fleet of about 900 CentOS/rocky VMs to Ubuntu to get out of their community. Pacman has performance advantages over apt-get and yum in both database operations (thanks to being written for speed) and download times (by virtue of using better mirrors than other distributions tend to select by default). And because Ubuntu itself is based on Debian, everything that Debian can run, Ubuntu can run; and so can Elementary. Arch has ALPM (and the frontend pacman), a binary package manager. Ubuntu is significantly faster, I’m going to wipe my desktop soon tl;dr: Because its the software stack that matters, and both distros compile their software more-or-less the same, Arch and Ubuntu performed the same in CPU and graphics intensive tests. The performances of the desktop itself in Garuda is sweet, probably because of the cpu scheduler they decide to use, and the GUI utilities are all amazing and stable in the Has anyone found any significant performance differnece between Pop vs Ubuntu or, let's say Nobara vs. The difference is really just visuals/aesthetics, default settings and the packages that come preinstalled. Factors affecting system performance include hardware compatibility, system resources, software packages and updates, Explore the performance battle between Arch Linux and Ubuntu in programming environments. openSUSE vs. (Arch technically did better by a hair, but not The notion to try out Linux can be spurred by many factors. Literally the only thing holding me back is how well the unity game engine runs on arch Linux (I prefer engineless programming but I’m working on a partnered project in which the scope demands that I use it). Just my thoughts on it anyway. The Arch installation is much more bare bones. Those 2 points could be critical for many. Don't get me wrong, though, I use Arch pretty exclusively on my personal machines, and updates in other distros break things on occasion, too. Here, just copy paste these commands from my blog's "minimalistic arch install how-to" into your terminal with 0 understanding of what you're doing, or better yet use an easy install arch derivative, and now you are so much better than the ubuntu underclass. " But if you don't put Okay so I made an earlier post saying I would be switching from windows 11 to arch. Problably because reddit people most of the time don't have idea what they are talking about, i just crossed by a person that unironically tought that arch was minimal because you installed from a command line and used Ubuntu as an example, even tho Ubuntu has a minimal install ISO. The arch repos are also always enabled, so you can go back to the vanilla arch packages anytime. Void Linux also has different repositories and packaging system, which I think is reasonable to expect to have less packages. IF you know what you're doing, and you're willing to put in the time, Arch can be leaner and faster and be wholly "up to date. Perhaps you're dissatisfied with your current OS and you're looking for an alternative. Ubuntu's package manager, will fall behind Manjaro/Arch's package managers pretty fast. I'm debating between Arch, Alpine, or a dual-boot. r/ArcBrowser is a forum to discuss Arc — a better way to use the internet. Similarly my laptop gets ~10 hours of battery life on Manjaro vs ~12 hours of battery life on Ubuntu. Hyper-V gives full CPU performance, but even moving the mouse across the console window results in a very slight but noticeable lag. Performance wise there is almost no difference between running it in a VM, if you have a onboard gpu and a gaming gpu you can also passthrough the GPU to the VM and have native gaming experience, so definitely pro VM. Might be a bit late for this, but IMO debian is great for offline usage, because you can get the full package repository on DVDs (or USB sticks today, I guess) and install any and all packages you need from there, so you could download the 50-ish gigs of packages at a friend's house or somewhere (you can even buy pre-burned disks) and then install everything offline. Suggestions: Prefer packages from official repos over AUR, restart if something doesn't work after updates, set a timer to force shutdown FreeCAD on Reddit: a community dedicated to the open-source, extensible & scriptable parametric 3D CAD/CAM/FEM modeler. it's not snap. It is the case that the proprietary IBM/Lenovo software that exclusively runs on Windows may be more efficient but they cannot rewrite the laws of chemistry. Working with WSL2 for a long time and recently been trying Arch Linux. Recent phoronix benchmarks have shown it's the fastest linux distribution after clear linux (and arch has always performed poorly compared to the other distributios in these benchmarks). Performance isn't always better, it's always on par with Windows performance, and sometimes it's actually performing better, on older games that use DX9 it's always better than Windows because of DXVK, and more modern games don't show a major difference in actual framerate, but Linux is now viable for gaming, Nvidia and Intel aren't as easy to As is Ubuntu. It is maybe because Ubuntu 20. Ubuntu is tailored to provide convenience to its users. ) . Arch Linux vs. Arch Linux and Ubuntu have distinct customization aspects and different levels of performance. It's hard to choose between two popular distributions, Ubuntu and Arch Linux. With Arch you have less compile time. All the VirtualBox Linux VMs I've tested have a 14% performance hit over Hyper-V using GeekBench. Understanding these factors can help you make an informed decision when First of all thanks for you help. But if we look at Ubuntu 18. Fedora vs. 30), and while performance improves with each new release, which I'm always very grateful for, it always feels like there is still room for some improvement. Better to learn the use case of the AUR and it's convenience. The only distros that are 'optimized for gaming' are ones like nobara which include gaming-specific kernel tweaks and mesa tweaks. Ubuntu, on the other hand, Arch Linux prioritizes speed and efficiency, while Ubuntu prioritizes user-friendliness and stability. Their emphasis is on testing and stability. makepkg is provided as a way to build these packages, but generally you use binary packages. 04, GNOME version is Greetings Arch Community, I've been running Gnome for a couple releases now (since ~3. Ubuntu is more user friendly and is a better desktop experience. Having said that, the modern Gentoo wiki seems to have higher quality standards than the Arch wiki for well developed articles. But on Ubuntu it just exceeds an hour. archinstall. Debian can add anything that Ubuntu already has, but out of the box, Ubuntu is designed to be easier and friendlier and already configured. In the initial bracket, it was up against small distros. Fedora has gone all in on the latest Gnome packages, and Arch is known for being pretty bleeding edge in its package releases. My friend uses ubuntu. You can start up an the I mean, my vanilla Arch uses pretty much all of the goodies that Garuda uses, so technically don’t, it won’t run better than vanilla arch because it is based on Arch. What you need to know is Arch Linux and Ubuntu are built on the same technology; the difference lies in how they are configured and what software comes pre-installed. even latest Linux mint is sluggish compared to the previous version based on Ubuntu 20. rkutlo qufnj zbucg ablgggnf cfzl vxpg gqw vggc jaqo jzrwhsq