Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- From: Charles Russell <NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:27:36 -0600
Richard Maine wrote:
So computing time is not simply a matter of counting "flops"
Nope. Hasn't been for decades.
For my present hardware, using a benchmark for "flops" that simply multiplies large dense matrices, I have:
2/2003 desktop 100 Mflop/2.4GHz = 0.04 flop/Hz g77 with -fbounds-check
4/2006 laptop 40 Mflop/1.7GHz = 0.02 flop/Hz g77 with -bounds-check
Timing was not very accurate, done by stopwatch for portability of the benchmark program, and these were short runs. The laptop, though newer, is less efficient, presumably due to the factors you mention. It was a low-end machine.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- From: Janne Blomqvist
- Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- References:
- gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- From: Charles Russell
- Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- From: Richard Maine
- Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- From: Charles Russell
- Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- From: Richard Maine
- gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- Prev by Date: Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- Next by Date: Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- Previous by thread: Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- Next by thread: Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|