I've said nothing about "multiplication". Where you take "multiplication" from? Xorshift+ is already good enough for most usages.
PCG performance page didn't include results neither for xorshift128+, nor for xoroshiro128. But xoroshiro page has comparisons: http://xoroshiro.di.unimi.it/#speed And, did you measure by yourself? 30 дек. 2017 г. 6:44 AM пользователь "Matt Harden" <matt.har...@gmail.com> написал: PCG isn't faster than xorshift+multiplication? Do you have a rebuttal to their website that indicates it is? (called xorshift* on that page) http://www.pcg-random.org/rng-performance.html Or are you just saying it's not meaningfully faster for the purpose of channels because the other channel overheads are high enough to make the difference irrelevant? Or maybe that it isn't faster with current Go compliers? They also claim it's better statistically, but perhaps if we only care about fairness it's essentially the same. On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:34 AM Sokolov Yura <funny.fal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > it would be great to move to pcg. > > Why? PCG isn't faster, isn't simpler and isn't better (though not worse > either). > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
