Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
1994
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 1994

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Power Macs

  • To: mathgroup at yoda.physics.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Power Macs
  • From: "Andrew B. Watson" <beau at vision.arc.nasa.gov>
  • Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 14:23:36 -0700

I hope I am not contributing to the noise, but my causal tests show:

Sparc 10:

	In[2]:= Timing[Do[Gamma[1.1],{100000}]]
	Out[2]= {18.2333 Second, Null}

PowerMac 8100

	In[2]:= Timing[Do[Gamma[1.1],{100000}]]
	Out[2]= {14.0833 Second, Null}

Both were run on a raw kernel, without front end. Very similar results
were obtained with:

	tmp=AbsoluteTime[];Do[Gamma[1.1],{100000}];AbsoluteTime[]-tmp

which suggests that Timing is relatively trustworthy under these conditions.

The subject of benchmarking is notoriously slippery, and I am afraid
that misinformation (perhaps mine included) may unwittingly be dispersed to the
net. The slipperiness is compounded by the multiplicity of timing
methods, and whether or not one is using a Notebook Front End (I have
found this can make a substantial difference under some conditions).
Perhaps someone at WRI could offer a benchmark suite, and timing
method(s), so that we could all be talking the same language.

Andrew B. Watson
MS 262-2 NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field CA 94035-1000
(415) 604-5419 -3323 fax
beau at vision.arc.nasa.gov





  • Prev by Date: Alternative to Timing[10000!] benchmark
  • Next by Date: Re: Are these good books?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Alternative to Timing[10000!] benchmark
  • Next by thread: Yet more Timing[10000!] ...