When installing Ubuntu 18.04, Canonical's installer will offer to send some statistics to them. Canonical have now released some of this. One thing to note, is that this data does not include Ubuntu Server, Ubuntu Core, cloud images or and any other Ubuntu derivatives that don't include the report in their own installer.
They've had some good results from it, with 66% of people sending them their data although they don't mention how many results this is actually from. It's a nice start, but I think they really need to do some separation of physical and virtual machines, since it seems they're merged together which will skew a bunch of the data I would imagine. If you're interested in seeing what data is sent on Ubuntu, it can be found in "/.cache/ubuntu-report/".
Their data shows that 98% of people are using the 64bit version on Ubuntu, which lines up with our own user survey. On top of that, a desktop resolution of 1920x1080 remains the most popular at 28% with 1366x768 being the next highest at 25%. What's interesting, is that higher resolutions have a pretty low use with 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 both only seeing 1% although that could easily be watered down due to virtual machines.
One thing that's quite odd is the CPU section under the "Number of CPUs" heading, which claims 27% of people have 4-6 CPUs. Something about that doesn't seem right. 27% of people have at least 4 CPUs in the computer they're installing Ubuntu on? I think they need to improve the wording on this quite a bit just so it's crystal clear on exactly what the statistic represents. Likely CPU cores. I've let them know about it to take a look.
Take a look here at their full statistics page if you're interested.
Article edited and re-posted due to a mess up with the text causing some confusion, mostly my own—apologies.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
I've read this article, the comments, and then wandered over to Ubuntu's Stats page and then Ubuntu's Desktop Metrics page.
My opinion is that the Ubuntu statistics are not well defined. They are using CPU and GPU to refer to the physical hardware - and it is clear from reading the GOL comments that they didn't define this well leading to misinterpretation.
I don't like their World Usage Location Charts - The chart on the stats page looks like USA hasn't got a big user base, and then the description and chart on the Metrics page suggests that the USA does have a big user base.
They split the data into Physical and Virtual installs of Ubuntu, and then they don't provide stats for each of those, but then they are suggesting conclusions about Desktop Users when their stats could easily be referring to virtual "cloud" installs. For example, one reason that USA could have lots of Ubuntu "users" - is the fact that Amazon AWS Cloud has massive USA-based Data Centres hosting Virtual Machines.
These stats could have lots of value, but as Ubuntu have provided them to website visitors - not so much.
My opinion is that the Ubuntu statistics are not well defined. They are using CPU and GPU to refer to the physical hardware - and it is clear from reading the GOL comments that they didn't define this well leading to misinterpretation.
I don't like their World Usage Location Charts - The chart on the stats page looks like USA hasn't got a big user base, and then the description and chart on the Metrics page suggests that the USA does have a big user base.
They split the data into Physical and Virtual installs of Ubuntu, and then they don't provide stats for each of those, but then they are suggesting conclusions about Desktop Users when their stats could easily be referring to virtual "cloud" installs. For example, one reason that USA could have lots of Ubuntu "users" - is the fact that Amazon AWS Cloud has massive USA-based Data Centres hosting Virtual Machines.
These stats could have lots of value, but as Ubuntu have provided them to website visitors - not so much.
0 Likes
TL;DR. Counting the number of hardware threads available as the number of CPUs is not a particularly accurate measure, but it's probably good enough for the purposes of this sort of survey.
Long Opinion:
The actual information collected is quite sparse; I have included, as an example, the full information generated by ubuntu-report on the machine I am using at the end of this post. It does fully report processor geometry ( Sockets/Cores/HW Threads), but doesn't even include, for example, the clock speed the cores can run at.
Anyone that has looked at articles from the likes of Tom's Hardware, Anandtech and Phoronix will know that it is actually very hard to really compare CPU performance through simple metrics that take no account of chip architecture.
The physical CPU that you drop in a motherboard socket these days bears no relation to the physical CPU of 10-15 years ago, when 2-way and 4-way multi-socket motherboards were the only real way to get higher performing PCs. Those CPUs had a single core plus cache memory, etched on a single piece of silicon, and that's it.
The reason we have this CPU terminology problem today was the development of the MCM ( multi-chip module ), whereby several separately etched pieces of silicon, or one piece etched in several steps, are electrically integrated into a single physical package.
A modern physical CPU contains not just multiple copies of what used to be called a CPU, but also now contains the functions that used to be performed by separate physical chips on the motherboard ( the Northbridge and Southbridge ), and even GPU logic and memory. The MCM is also the reason why there are so many different physical CPUs to choose from, as Intel and AMD can assemble different components into a physical CPU for different purposes ( server, desktop, router etc ).
The state of the art for this integration is something like the upcoming Zen 2 range of processors from AMD, which will be able to ship a single physical server CPU with 64 cores, each with 2 hardware threads. Ubuntu-report would count this single physical package as "128 CPUs".
It is important to realize that putting multiple CPU cores into a single physical package will, under almost all circumstances, be higher performance and cheaper than the eqivalent number of 1-core CPUs in separate sockets. The only limitations to MCM integration is the number of input/output pins available in your socket design, and the ability of a cooling solution to remove heat from the package.
So there is often very little to be gained from even 2 physical CPU sockets on a motherboard today, and you are generally talking about eye-watering price points if you go down this route.
As each CPU core provides an independent ability to perform computations, I don't think it is unreasonable to count it as an independent CPU. I have more reservations with hardware threads; although you can use them to schedule more than one concurrent workload to a CPU core, each of those workloads will take longer, so hardware threads will not always improve performance; it depends on the workloads available.
====================================================================
Sample Ubuntu-Report Data Collected
====================================================================
{
"Version": "18.04",
"OEM": {
"Vendor": "To Be Filled By O.E.M.",
"Product": "To Be Filled By O.E.M."
},
"BIOS": {
"Vendor": "American Megatrends Inc.",
"Version": "P2.30"
},
"CPU": {
"OpMode": "32-bit, 64-bit",
"CPUs": "8",
"Threads": "2",
"Cores": "4",
"Sockets": "1",
"Vendor": "GenuineIntel",
"Family": "6",
"Model": "45",
"Stepping": "7",
"Name": "Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3820 CPU @ 3.60GHz",
"Virtualization": "VT-x"
},
"Arch": "amd64",
"GPU": [
{
"Vendor": "10de",
"Model": "1b82"
}
],
"RAM": 32.9,
"Disks": [
128,
128,
500.1,
512.1
],
"Partitions": [
107.6,
0.1,
124.9,
500,
479.7
],
"Screens": [
{
"Size": "597mmx336mm",
"Resolution": "2560x1440",
"Frequency": "59.95"
}
],
"Autologin": false,
"LivePatch": true,
"Session": {
"DE": "ubuntu:GNOME",
"Name": "ubuntu",
"Type": "x11"
},
"Language": "en_GB",
"Timezone": "Europe/London"
Long Opinion:
The actual information collected is quite sparse; I have included, as an example, the full information generated by ubuntu-report on the machine I am using at the end of this post. It does fully report processor geometry ( Sockets/Cores/HW Threads), but doesn't even include, for example, the clock speed the cores can run at.
Anyone that has looked at articles from the likes of Tom's Hardware, Anandtech and Phoronix will know that it is actually very hard to really compare CPU performance through simple metrics that take no account of chip architecture.
The physical CPU that you drop in a motherboard socket these days bears no relation to the physical CPU of 10-15 years ago, when 2-way and 4-way multi-socket motherboards were the only real way to get higher performing PCs. Those CPUs had a single core plus cache memory, etched on a single piece of silicon, and that's it.
The reason we have this CPU terminology problem today was the development of the MCM ( multi-chip module ), whereby several separately etched pieces of silicon, or one piece etched in several steps, are electrically integrated into a single physical package.
A modern physical CPU contains not just multiple copies of what used to be called a CPU, but also now contains the functions that used to be performed by separate physical chips on the motherboard ( the Northbridge and Southbridge ), and even GPU logic and memory. The MCM is also the reason why there are so many different physical CPUs to choose from, as Intel and AMD can assemble different components into a physical CPU for different purposes ( server, desktop, router etc ).
The state of the art for this integration is something like the upcoming Zen 2 range of processors from AMD, which will be able to ship a single physical server CPU with 64 cores, each with 2 hardware threads. Ubuntu-report would count this single physical package as "128 CPUs".
It is important to realize that putting multiple CPU cores into a single physical package will, under almost all circumstances, be higher performance and cheaper than the eqivalent number of 1-core CPUs in separate sockets. The only limitations to MCM integration is the number of input/output pins available in your socket design, and the ability of a cooling solution to remove heat from the package.
So there is often very little to be gained from even 2 physical CPU sockets on a motherboard today, and you are generally talking about eye-watering price points if you go down this route.
As each CPU core provides an independent ability to perform computations, I don't think it is unreasonable to count it as an independent CPU. I have more reservations with hardware threads; although you can use them to schedule more than one concurrent workload to a CPU core, each of those workloads will take longer, so hardware threads will not always improve performance; it depends on the workloads available.
====================================================================
Sample Ubuntu-Report Data Collected
====================================================================
{
"Version": "18.04",
"OEM": {
"Vendor": "To Be Filled By O.E.M.",
"Product": "To Be Filled By O.E.M."
},
"BIOS": {
"Vendor": "American Megatrends Inc.",
"Version": "P2.30"
},
"CPU": {
"OpMode": "32-bit, 64-bit",
"CPUs": "8",
"Threads": "2",
"Cores": "4",
"Sockets": "1",
"Vendor": "GenuineIntel",
"Family": "6",
"Model": "45",
"Stepping": "7",
"Name": "Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3820 CPU @ 3.60GHz",
"Virtualization": "VT-x"
},
"Arch": "amd64",
"GPU": [
{
"Vendor": "10de",
"Model": "1b82"
}
],
"RAM": 32.9,
"Disks": [
128,
128,
500.1,
512.1
],
"Partitions": [
107.6,
0.1,
124.9,
500,
479.7
],
"Screens": [
{
"Size": "597mmx336mm",
"Resolution": "2560x1440",
"Frequency": "59.95"
}
],
"Autologin": false,
"LivePatch": true,
"Session": {
"DE": "ubuntu:GNOME",
"Name": "ubuntu",
"Type": "x11"
},
"Language": "en_GB",
"Timezone": "Europe/London"
0 Likes
Haha - you can all argue what a core is until you're blue in the face! 180 polled individuals in Liam's little twitter survey think it's a CPU, while around 180 think it's a Core.
Seriously though, who cares??
I wonder if Canonical will ever release overall desktop numbers, rather than just stats collected. I'd just like to know how many Ubuntu desktops exist (that aren't virual/test machines). That would be cool.
Seriously though, who cares??
I wonder if Canonical will ever release overall desktop numbers, rather than just stats collected. I'd just like to know how many Ubuntu desktops exist (that aren't virual/test machines). That would be cool.
0 Likes
Quoting: liamdaweWell, I was regretting even mentioning the wording, but hey it sparked some interesting discussion...
Going by the poll on Twitter that's still going: https://twitter.com/thenaughtysquid/status/1053053701211017217 at time of writing 49% of 294 votes think they mean a separate CPU. Clearly this is something that people are split on.
I really do wonder, if I literally said in the article "27% of people have 4-6 CPUs" without mentioning the wording - how many comments would we get complaining on the other side hmm?
Haha, I think the reason for the 50/50 split is because everyone is using a different sense of the word. There's the general public/product sense, then there's the technical definition.
For instance, while I hold to the fact that a core *is* a CPU, if I went to the store I would ask for a multi-core "CPU". Even though I'm well aware there are multiple CPUs in it, I will still call the monolithic chip a single CPU.
However, if you ask me if a core is a CPU I would say yes, because a CPU is a processing unit that contains an IO controller, a math processor and a logic processor. Thus, each core meets the exact definition of a CPU.
These stats aren't primarily for just whoever happens to read them, nor to be able to report about statistics for the sake of reporting them. These stats are for developers who want to know what they ought to be targeting. So, it actually makes perfect sense to just label it as "CPUs".
Funny thing is that if you talk to some older people they call the entire machine a CPU. If you said, "I have 8 CPUs", they would assume you're saying you have 8 entire desktop computers. My computer science teacher when I was in high school used to use that sense of the word. :)
Last edited by Natedawg on 19 October 2018 at 11:39 pm UTC
0 Likes
Comandante Ñoñardo Oct 20, 2018
Quoting: NatedawgFunny thing is that if you talk to some older people they call the entire machine a CPU. If you said, "I have 8 CPUs", they would assume you're saying you have 8 entire desktop computers. My computer science teacher when I was in high school used to use that sense of the word. :)
I remember that...
My first incursion with the computers was in the mid 1980's, when they were connected to a normal TV and they used audio cassettes for the software.. I remember using the program LOGO...
Anyway, in 1998 I got my first PC and in those days they called "CPU" to the assembled case (mobo, processor, RAM, disk, video and the optional audio card)
2 Likes, Who?
slaapliedje Oct 20, 2018
Quoting: Comandante ÑoñardoQuoting: GuestI always love statistics that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that 1080p and lower resolutions still form the vast majority of desktop pcs and that only a tiny minority uses 1440p and 4k. Not only Ubuntu's but Steam's statistics are similar.I agree..
Sure, 4K will be an standard in 10 years, but today 1920x1080 is the queen, followed by 1366x768. Developers and game reviewers must take note on that..
Quoting: GuestIt is especially interesting considering that anywhere you look online when gpus are discussed, 99% of the comments speak about the 1080ti and 2080ti and nothing else, that AMD has no viable/competitive product to buy, that they need a 1080ti competitor. I even recall some people on Phoronix forums telling me the same stuff, that they don't consider amd gpus as viable despite the opensource drivers cause they absolutely need 1080ti performance on Linux...I think that the gamers obsessed with the 4K, 1080ti and the 2080ti are trying to compensate something...You know..something physical.
A true game reviewer should do the game benchmarks and reviews using a wide variety of hardware .. true reachable hardware and not just the overpriced top cards supplied by an sponsor...
I don't trust in official game requirements because, sometimes, publishers are sponsored by a GPU brand..
I think the same about the CPU side.
I generally game on my 27inch 2560x1440@144hz monitor with a 1080gtx, but it was handled fine by my 980GTX. What the 1080 does better is with my Vive Pro, in which the resolution is truly useful (otherwise it is a blurry mess). Some games do simply need that extra power to run correctly, I am talking about Elite: Dangerous for one.
0 Likes
The steam survey seams to echo the findings on resolution, with around 5% of total users having > 1440p. I think the number skews a bit lower for linux primarily because hidpi support has been terrible for so long, beyond that 4k60 gaming on linux is just not feasible with current hardware, and the other portion of the population buying hi-res monitors are creatives who don't have access to the apps they need. Its a shame as I'm a huge fan of hidpi displays, and feel people don't know what they are missing out on.
Having said that, I'm sure theres a segment of gamers who use 4k TV's in their living rooms, and are not getting counted in these numbers as its not typically hooked up during these surveys.
Having said that, I'm sure theres a segment of gamers who use 4k TV's in their living rooms, and are not getting counted in these numbers as its not typically hooked up during these surveys.
0 Likes
Quoting: Hal_KadoThe steam survey seams to echo the findings on resolution, with around 5% of total users having > 1440p. I think the number skews a bit lower for linux primarily because hidpi support has been terrible for so long, beyond that 4k60 gaming on linux is just not feasible with current hardware, and the other portion of the population buying hi-res monitors are creatives who don't have access to the apps they need. Its a shame as I'm a huge fan of hidpi displays, and feel people don't know what they are missing out on.
Having said that, I'm sure theres a segment of gamers who use 4k TV's in their living rooms, and are not getting counted in these numbers as its not typically hooked up during these surveys.
Well, the thing about the Ubuntu stats is that they are combining virtual machines and real machines into the results, and owing to that the actual values aren't particularly representative.
However, I feel I should contend your opinion about 4K being unsuitable for Linux gaming. I have a 4K 60Hz 40 inch monitor connected to GTX1080ti graphics, and I've had no problem playing many different games at 4K with that setup.
I bought the monitor a couple of years ago, and the 1080ti about 1 year ago. My reasoning was that I wanted a lot of screen-estate (e.g. equivalent to four 20 inch HD screens) for productivity (e.g. multiple windows visible at once), photography (viewing photos at 4K), films/videos at 4K, and having a big single display for gaming (with the potential to drop down to 1080p if the game ran badly at 4K).
Well, I've been playing demanding titles like Shadow Warrior 2 (Wine), Serious Sam 3 BFE, Killing Floor 2 (Proton/Wine), RUST, Dying Light, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Tomb Raider (2013), Mad Max, Skyrim (Proton/Wine), 7 Days To Die, Blades of Time (Proton/Wine), Dead Island Definitive Edition, Immortal Redneck, Ziggurat, Hitman - all at 4K. Sure, I wouldn't mind a boost in framerate, but none of the above examples is so poor that I feel I need to drop resolution.
Also, finishing off with this: One reason I went with 4K rather than 2x 1080p - Two years ago (and even now) multiple native Linux games have issues handling multiple displays sensibly. And having one big display eradicates that problem.
Last edited by g000h on 20 October 2018 at 7:03 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: g000hWell, I've been playing demanding titles like Shadow Warrior 2 (Wine), Serious Sam 3 BFE, Killing Floor 2 (Proton/Wine), RUST, Dying Light, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Tomb Raider (2013), Mad Max, Skyrim (Proton/Wine), 7 Days To Die, Blades of Time (Proton/Wine), Dead Island Definitive Edition, Immortal Redneck, Ziggurat, Hitman - all at 4K.
Curious that you got KF2 to work in Proton/Wine? I bought the game on sale to give it a shot, but ran into this bug, which resets all perks to zero at the end of earning any experience. I refunded it on the same day I bought it, with 45 minutes played.
If it weren't for that bug, I'd still be playing it right now - great performance and no visual issues at all that I could see. The game played perfectly... it just threw away all my experience at the end of each run.
Are you playing online? And if so... how?
0 Likes
Quoting: scaineCurious that you got KF2 to work in Proton/Wine? I bought the game on sale to give it a shot, but ran into this bug, which resets all perks to zero at the end of earning any experience. I refunded it on the same day I bought it, with 45 minutes played.
If it weren't for that bug, I'd still be playing it right now - great performance and no visual issues at all that I could see. The game played perfectly... it just threw away all my experience at the end of each run.
Are you playing online? And if so... how?
I was only quoting how it performed (speed-wise) for me. Only played it for about 2 hours, through a number of levels, and quit playing and uninstalled. I was playing single player and wasn't checking to see if the saves worked properly. As I haven't got the more up-to-date Nvidia drivers installed yet (i.e. I just use the regular packaged drivers 390.xx ) , I've been holding back from putting too much effort into Proton gaming. I'd be well stuck into Skyrim by now, if the sound problem (in Proton) was solved.
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me