MathGroup Archive 2006

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

Search the Archive

Re: Comparison of Mathematica on Various Computers

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg64345] Re: Comparison of Mathematica on Various Computers
  • From: "Richard Fateman" <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu>
  • Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 03:15:03 -0500 (EST)
  • References: <200602090745.CAA19418@smc.vnet.net> <200602100713.CAA15024@smc.vnet.net> <dsk8m8$i9l$1@smc.vnet.net> <dsmueo$da0$1@smc.vnet.net>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

I don't know if the data is detailed enough to figure out, but here's
a hypothesis.
Operations on very long numbers are perhaps done by calls to
GMP.  GMP has special assembly language routines that can be
used for AMD (or other) 64-bit architectures.  If the short times
are primarily for high-precision numerics, and that's what you are doing,
then go for it.   If the timing test "fastest" measurements reflect 
irrelevant operations to
you, then you can go for the best price/performance or some other
measure.  I would be surprised if plotting went faster on a 64-bit
machine, unless the machine is otherwise faster.

 But I have not done the detailed detective work.

"albert" <awnl at arcor.de> wrote in message news:dsmueo$da0$1 at smc.vnet.net...
> Renan wrote:
>
>> On 2/10/06, fizzy <fizzycist at knology.net> wrote:
>>> Can someone explain why AMD does so well on this test and Pentium does 
>>> so
>>> poorly by comparison??
>>> I am planning to buy a new  computer and these tests seem to indicate
>>> that a Mathematica user should buy an AMD machine.
.. 


  • Prev by Date: Exporting Density Plots -- one pixel per point?
  • Next by Date: Re: Comparison of Mathematica on Various Computers
  • Previous by thread: Re: Comparison of Mathematica on Various Computers
  • Next by thread: Re: Comparison of Mathematica on Various Computers