Re: Best Windows for Mma 2.2.2????
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg2224] Re: Best Windows for Mma 2.2.2????
- From: weinsh at ccnet.com (alweinsh)
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 02:34:14 -0400
- Organization: CCnet Communications (510-988-7140 guest)
The following was obtained with a Micron Pentium 120 , 16 Mb, running
Windows 95. Refer to the letter on BenchMarks in this group to properly
place them in relation to other platforms. I think Win 95
significantly decreases the speed of MMA 2.2.3
Timing[N[Sin[1/2],2500]][[1]]
9.362 Second
Timing[N[Pi,10001]][[1]]
13.934 Second
Timing[10001!][[1]]
12.649 Second
First[Timing[Eigenvalues[Table[Random[],{200},{200}]]]]
23.17 Second
f[x_]:= 4x-4x^2;
Timing[ Nest[f,0.6,5000]][[1]]
8.501 Second
f[x_]:= BesselJ[0,x];
Timing[Nest[f,0.6,2500]][[1]]
18.529 Second
kdv[q_]:= D[q,t] - 1/4 D[q,{x,3}] -3/2 q D[q,x]
q3:= (-5*E^((11*t)/8) - 45*E^(2*x) - 18*E^((11*t)/16 + x) +
162*E^((3*t)/2 + 2*x) - 188*E^((13*t)/16 + 3*x) +
162*E^(t/8 + 4*x) - 45*E^((13*t)/8 + 4*x) -
18*E^((15*t)/16 + 5*x) - 5*E^(t/4 + 6*x))/
(8*(-E^((11*t)/16) + 3*E^x - 3*E^((13*t)/16 + 2*x) +
E^(t/8 + 3*x))^2)
Timing[Simplify[kdv[q3]]]
{59.29 Second, 0}
Before loading Win 95 I used WFW 3.1. Though I can't find the data, my
recollection is that WFW 3.11 was in line with all of the other
microprocessors and memory configurations. If you use MMA alot, and need
speed, Win 95 is not for you.
Since you have Win 3.1 loaded, try the above benchmarks on your machine.
I would be interested in the resukts
Jerry P. Purswell (purswell at netplus.net) wrote:
: I am still running Mma (ver 2.2.2 enhanced) under Windows 3.1. Does anyone
: out there have comparisons of Mma under the different versions of Windows
: (Win 3.1, WfW 3.1, Win 95) ?
: I've been thinking about upgrading to WfW to get 32 bit file access but I
: am not sure that this will improve Mma's performance since (I think) Mma
: already uses the Win32s to get a 32 bit kernal. (Mma is by far my most
: demanding app).
: With regard to Windows 95 - I've heard from someone at WRI that Mma may
: actually run more slowly under Win 95 since Win 95 requires so much memory.
: Any advertursome souls out there who have actually tried out Mma with two or
: more of the Windows versions?
: Thanks in advance for any feedback - JP