• owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    No worries, I’m here for it!

    It’s a noticeable improvement to me, but probably only marginal to the layperson. I haven’t gotten around to more thorough profiling yet (the included btop++ profiler actually caused my games to crash), but I get the impression my PC is utilizing a lot more of its capabilities (based on performance, fan noise, etc), though maybe I’m just confirming my own biases.

    I’m guessing you might get similar gains by compiling manually, but the nice thing with CachyOS is that it’s already compiled (likely with other optimizations as well, I haven’t looked too far into it). I have the technical skills to compile manually, but not the time or energy, so it’s a great solution for me.

    • ferric_carcinization@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      As you use Cachy, you probably already knew, but Arch compiles for x86_64_v1 (all 64-bit x86 CPUs). While some packages (glibc, I think & codecs, for example) use compiler magic & assembly to use vector instructions when available, most packages compiled for Arch cannot make use of them. Some programs feel much faster when compiling them myself.

      I wonder if clear Linux (Intel’s distro) would have any noticeable improvement i performance? I think that Cachy might use a few of their patches.
      Note: I’m very much not an Intel shill. I wouldn’t want to actually use it, just interested in the performance.

      • owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Yeah, the defacto Arch packages are only compiled for v1, but CachyOS has compiled a lot of the core libraries for v3/v4 (including Wine), which is where I think I’m seeing some improvements. I’m sure the performance would be more optimized by compiling myself, but I don’t have the time or patience for it right now.