Mma 2.0 slower than 1.0?

*To*: mathgroup at yoda.physics.unc.edu*Subject*: Mma 2.0 slower than 1.0?*From*: barry at math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)*Date*: Tue, 27 Aug 91 15:15:23 PDT

It appears to me that Mma 2.0 is slower than Mma 1.0 on numerical calculations. For example, consider this trivial benchmark (100,000 real multiplies) Timing[ Block[{x = 1.00001,y = 1.0000}, Do[ y *= x, {100000} ]; y] ] On my NeXTStation, I get, using Mma kernel 1.2: {54.1833 Second, 2.718268237192294} While using Mma kernel 2.0 I get {59.4667 Second, 2.71827} Thus it appears that 2.0 is 10% slower than 1.0 on the trivial benchmark of doing 100,000 multiplies. Hmm. Has anyone else benchmarked 1.0 vs 2.0? I thought 2.0 was supposed to be faster! (I have experimented with Compile-ing the above program, but it always hits an error and says CompiledFunction::cfn: Numerical error encountered at instruction 23 ; proceeding with uncompiled evaluation. and so end up taking about 1 second longer. Probably I need to learn more about how to convert the benchmark to a suitable form for the compiler to enhance...I'm waiting for my docs...)