Re: Mma speed trials (Win'95)
- Subject: [mg2866] Re: Mma speed trials (Win'95)
- From: efo at RDCS.kodak.com (Ed Oswalt)
- Date: 30 Dec 1995 03:46:13 -0600
- Approved: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Distribution: local
- Newsgroups: wri.mathgroup
- Organization: Eastman Kodak - any opinions expressed are my own...
- Sender: daemon at wri.com
Richard Morey Porter <rmporter at unixg.ubc.ca> wrote: >Hello all > >Happy Yule! > >Had a few spare moments, so I thought I'd do the speed trials on my = >machine. It would appear to be underperforming (or at best performing = >inconsistently). Is this my imagination? Am I merely quibbling over = >nanoseconds? I thought 16MB RAM would be enough, but my P-100 seems to = >be outpaced by lower speed 486s running on 16MB. Is Win'95 vs. MMa = >front-end really slowing things down this much, that I am effectivly = >running a 486 between 33 and 75 MHz? > >Anyone else experiencing a similar wholesale drop in performance? > >Machine Specs: > >Pentium, 100 MHz, 16MB RAM, Win'95 (Monitor: 800x600, 256, 1MB; MMa = >2.2.4 student version) > < timings - snipped to save space > I did see a performance drop with Mathematica 2.2 Student when I went from Windows 3.1 to Win 95 on a P-90 with 8Mb of RAM of 5%. It could be worse.... I only bought MMa a few months ago but it appears my school sold me a old version of the student edition with NO FLOATING POINT (and of course MATHEMATICA did not tell me that or offer the new 2.2.4 version when I registered the product). I mention that because if you think your numbers are slow wait till you run the speed tests without floating point! For example I get 440 seconds verses your 27 seconds for the Eingenvalues timing test (a heavy Floating point computation). On interger operations I perform about the same as you.... But back to 3.1 verses Win 95 , I was suprized to see a 5% or so performance drop (I don't have the results handy at the moment) - I expected Win 95 to be faster based on what MicroSoft said - not sure why but it may be my Win 95 install is less than optimial... I still need to tune my system for Win 95 and beat on Mathematica folks for letting me get stuck with a non floating point version when the floating point was available... Ed Oswalt A student again at RIT....