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 ...
I'm still a linux noob, but I'm interested in becoming a competent "power user" rather than just a user and forcing it on myself seems like the best way. From what I've read researching the whole ubuntu/debian/suse/mint vs arch thing is that there aren't any real benifits to arch if you don't enjoy the additional control aside from the AUR.
I got Arch because I didn't like the bloat of Ubuntu and for me Arch is less problematic. Arch has a community behind it that creates and maintains Arch. Ubuntu has a company behind it that just destroys the idea of Linux being free from companies. With Arch you install what you need and you know your system.
level 1. FifteenthPen. · 3y. Try Arch in a VM, see if you like it. 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. They're both great though, IMO. I use Arch at home and Ubuntu at work. 9. level 2.
2. level 1. [deleted] · 4y. If you learn Linux commands for professional reasons it's better to stay with Ubuntu (or Debian based distro) than Arch Linux because it's more used for servers. Programming is not going to change whatever the distro you choose but if you're a noob most tutorials are going to be for Ubuntu.
My laptop (productivity, internet use, etc) is running Arch Linux. Before that, i went with Ubuntu and I am still a big fan, but not sure if it's the system for me (i love to customise and know my system). However, Linux gaming is mostly supported for Ubuntu.