Re: new benchmark results for 8 CL implementations in cliki.net
From: Douglas Crosher (dtc_at_scieneer.com)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: Bruce Stephens: "Re: How do I deal with code that doesn't compile?"
- Previous message: Stephen Kellett: "Re: Your Guru Paul Graham is getting trashed on Slashdot."
- In reply to: Christian Pietsch: "new benchmark results for 8 CL implementations in cliki.net"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 21:24:51 +1000
Christian Pietsch wrote:
> after installing a couple of Lisp implementations on my new Linux box,
> I could not resist running Eric Marsden's benchmark collection on
> them. These include the classic Gabriel benchmarks as well as
> ``mathematical functions, bignum-intensive operations, CLOS test,
> hashtable exercising, read-line exercising, and various operations of
> arrays, strings and bitvectors,'' if I may quote from his site:
> http://purl.org/net/emarsden/home/downloads
...
> It's interesting to see how some implementations excel at some tasks,
> and other ones at other tasks. May I naively ask why nobody combines
> the best routines into a high-performance Lisp? I'm sure somebody is
> trying to do this right now.
...
Out of interest, below are results for a 64 bit version of Scieneer
Common Lisp (SCL) running of an AMD64 3200 (2GHz, 1024k cache). The
results are compared to the same reference, and most of the results
are close to this 32 bit CMUCL reference. The larger fixnums in a
64 bit CL probably explain the improved performance in the CRC40
benchmark. The bignum benchmarks also appear to do well on the 64 bit
platform, with SCL processing bignum calculations in 64 bit chunks.
The AMD64 Linux environment has matured well over the past year and
may well may be worth considering for CL based project development and
deployment.
Regards
Douglas Crosher
Scieneer Pty Ltd
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Reference SCL 1.2.3b2
CMUCL18e (AMD64)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPILER [ 1.98] 1.03
LOAD-FASL [ 0.18] 0.72
SUM-PERMUTATIONS [ 2.05] 0.54
WALK-LIST/SEQ [ 0.03] 2.10
WALK-LIST/MESS [ 0.16] 0.41
BOYER [ 5.51] 0.79
BROWSE [ 0.58] 0.66
DDERIV [ 0.56] 0.55
DERIV [ 0.62] 0.58
DESTRUCTIVE [ 0.51] 0.86
DIV2-TEST-1 [ 1.30] 0.44
DIV2-TEST-2 [ 1.41] 0.54
FFT [ 0.06] 1.43
FRPOLY/FIXNUM [ 0.54] 0.83
FRPOLY/BIGNUM [ 0.62] 0.55
FRPOLY/FLOAT [ 0.94] 0.75
PUZZLE [ 0.17] 2.51
TAK [ 0.36] 1.02
CTAK [ 0.33] 0.96
TRTAK [ 0.36] 1.01
TAKL [ 0.37] 1.45
STAK [ 0.47] 1.63
FPRINT/UGLY [ 0.68] 2.30
FPRINT/PRETTY [ 2.23] 2.15
TRAVERSE [ 0.80] 1.27
TRIANGLE [ 0.60] 1.67
RICHARDS [ 0.46] 1.71
FACTORIAL [ 0.33] 0.85
FIB [ 0.44] 1.02
FIB-RATIO [ 0.34] 0.60
ACKERMANN [ 5.63] 1.26
MANDELBROT/COMPLEX [ 9.13] 0.78
MANDELBROT/DFLOAT [ 5.26] 0.63
MRG32K3A [ 0.78] 0.90
CRC40 [ 19.30] 0.02
BIGNUM/ELEM-100-1000 [ 0.50] 0.51
BIGNUM/ELEM-1000-100 [ 2.74] 0.24
BIGNUM/ELEM-10000-1 [ 3.00] 0.18
BIGNUM/PARI-100-10 [ 1.28] 0.16
BIGNUM/PARI-200-5 [ 15.90] 0.10
PI-DECIMAL/SMALL [ 25.10] 0.32
PI-DECIMAL/BIG [ 53.32] 0.18
PI-ATAN [ 1.38] 0.56
PI-RATIOS [ 4.51] 0.59
SLURP-LINES [ 0.89] 0.42
HASH-STRINGS [ 0.47] 1.13
HASH-INTEGERS [ 0.84] 2.22
BOEHM-GC [ 1.89] 0.71
DEFLATE-FILE [ 0.45] 1.07
1D-ARRAYS [ 0.07] 1.26
2D-ARRAYS [ 0.87] 1.41
3D-ARRAYS [ 2.91] 1.12
BITVECTORS [ 0.63] 0.86
BENCH-STRINGS [ 2.54] 1.05
fill-strings/adjustable [ 19.24] 1.01
STRING-CONCAT [ 55.08] 0.45
SEARCH-SEQUENCE [ 3.03] 0.87
CLOS/defclass [ 3.46] 0.21
CLOS/defmethod [ 7.27] 0.29
CLOS/instantiate [ 8.03] 0.44
CLOS/simple-instantiate [ 0.33] 1.01
CLOS/methodcalls [ 0.33] 4.30
CLOS/complex-methods [ 0.06] 15.53
EQL-SPECIALIZED-FIB [ 0.32] 4.09
Reference time in first column is in seconds; other columns are relative
Reference implementation: CMU Common Lisp 18e CVS Head 2003-09-14 16:41:12 (binary rel.)
- Next message: Bruce Stephens: "Re: How do I deal with code that doesn't compile?"
- Previous message: Stephen Kellett: "Re: Your Guru Paul Graham is getting trashed on Slashdot."
- In reply to: Christian Pietsch: "new benchmark results for 8 CL implementations in cliki.net"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
