Please consider the following:
From a fresh Mathematica kernel, RandomVariate is more efficient for NormalDistribution but RandomReal is for uniformly distributed noise.
RandomReal[NormalDistribution[0, 1], 100]; // Timing
{0.00535, Null}
RandomVariate[NormalDistribution[0, 1], 100]; // Timing
{0.000069, Null}
RandomReal[{0, 1}, 100]; // Timing
{0.00004, Null}
RandomVariate[UniformDistribution[], 100]; // Timing
{0.005236, Null}
But if I re-evaluate, I get Timing results that are much more similar:
RandomReal[NormalDistribution[0, 1], 100]; // Timing
{0.000051, Null}
RandomVariate[NormalDistribution[0, 1], 100]; // Timing
{0.000052, Null}
RandomReal[{0, 1}, 100]; // Timing
{0.00003, Null}
RandomVariate[UniformDistribution[], 100]; // Timing
{0.000058, Null}
Does caching the distribution definition really matter that much?
Obviously RandomVariate has the advantage that it can generate data from mixed (not only fully continuous or fully discrete) distributions. So it is more general. But if one is generating random numbers from standard distributions like the normal or the Poisson, is there any advantage – performance or otherwise – to using RandomVariate instead of RandomReal or RandomInteger?

RandomRealworked for distributions – Rojo Mar 4 '12 at 3:55RandomRealin v8, but can be verified to work withHistogram@RandomReal[NormalDistribution[0, 1], 1000]. It is the way to do it in version 7, and I hadn't adapted toRandomVariateyet. – Verbeia♦ Mar 4 '12 at 4:02