D is 71% faster than D - or why benchmarking often returns odd results (Re: Coolest D features)

[Thomas Kuehne]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Waldemar schrieb am 2006-12-28:

<snip>

> That may be but this specific C compiler is most likely gcc on Linux or VS C++ on
> Windows.  The D compiler is probably dmd.  It's a bit shocking to see a 50%
> difference.  Is there information which compilers were used?  And is there any
> reason to believe the specifics of the benchmark could produce such a wide difference?

Comparing SciMark2 (svn://dstress.kuehne.cn/benchmark/scimark) compiled
with GDC-0.20 and DMD-0.178 suggests that D is 71% faster than D <g>

GDC-0.20:
	Using       2.00 seconds min time per kernel.
	Composite Score:          366.95
	FFT             Mflops:   552.68    (N=1024)
	SOR             Mflops:   338.06    (100 x 100)
	MonteCarlo      Mflops:    63.91
	Sparse matmult  Mflops:   346.75    (N=1000, nz=5000)
	LU              Mflops:   533.33    (M=100, N=100)

DMD-0.178:
	Using       2.00 seconds min time per kernel.
	Composite Score:          213.89
	FFT             Mflops:   240.84    (N=1024)
	SOR             Mflops:   347.83    (100 x 100)
	MonteCarlo      Mflops:    48.63
	Sparse matmult  Mflops:   107.08    (N=1000, nz=5000)
	LU              Mflops:   325.08    (M=100, N=100)

The most important question of benchmarking:
What do you compare and why do you compare it?

Thomas


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFFlCwrLK5blCcjpWoRAhdtAKCaGafUkKGjmBPukKBTid/03LLDAQCgrq+9
SUTvZKzinOVKtRxVwsNVGiA=
=4zbH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----