Hi,
It was the article in one of the Java magazines two years ago.
I don't remember which one. They claimed that for numerical
operations the speed was comparable.
In very crude and simple loop test on Linux with gcc -O3
and Blackdown Java (I assume jit was on) the ratio Java/C
speed was 3 - 4 times.
Jacob
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Benchmarks comparisons between Java and C/C++.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Lee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacob Nikom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 11:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Benchmark results for Linux JVM's.
>
> Hi,
>
> What information you mean?
>
> Jacob
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Could you please let me share any information you get because I'm looking
> > for the same info.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Lee
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jacob Nikom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 10:12 AM
> > To: Raja Vallee-Rai
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Benchmark results for Linux JVM's.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does anybody know comparable benchmarks for Java, C and C++ tasks?
> > I am interested in comparative speed of the languages - any platform
> > is good. So far I heard only about two years old Java/C++ comparison
> > on NT, which stated similarity in speed under some conditions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jacob Nikom
> >
> > Raja Vallee-Rai wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > We have formally evaluated the different virtual machines available for
> > > Linux
> > > and thought it would be worthwhile to share the results with the Linux
> > > community.
> > >
> > > The following tests were conducted on an unloaded dual processor Pentium
> > > II/400mhz running Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.2.8). Each benchmark
> > > execution was
> > > repeated ten times. We discarded the maximum and minimum results, and
> > > averaged
> > > the remaining 8 execution times.
> > >
> > > The first 9 benchmarks come from the specJVM98 benchmark suite
> > > (http://www.spec.org), and the last two benchmarks come from our own
> > > private
> > > collection.
> > >
> > > base(s): time in seconds to run under blackdown jdk 1.2, pre-release 2,
> > > with jit.
> > >
> > > sunint: speedup (base time/this time) of the blackdown jdk1.2,
> > > pre-release 2,
> > > with no jit.
> > >
> > > borjit: speedup of blackdown jdk1.2, pre-release 2, with the Borland jit
> > > installed (http://www.borland.com)
> > >
> > > ibmjit: speedup of the AlphaWorks IBM 1.1.8 JIT
> > > (http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com)
> > >
> > > A # indicates that the run failed validity checks.
> > >
> > > base(s) sunint borjit ibmjit
> > > check .84 - 1.33 - 1.25 # 1.75 -
> > > compress 65.61 - .15 - 1.07 - 2.42 -
> > > db 148.43 - .57 - .98 - 2.98 -
> > > jack 64.50 - .43 - 1.35 - 3.65 -
> > > javac 75.67 - .54 - 1.21 - 2.51 -
> > > jess 50.86 - .47 - 1.44 - 2.67 -
> > > mpegaudio 54.61 - .15 - 1.19 # 2.32 -
> > > mtrt 40.32 - .41 - 1.78 - 2.79 -
> > > raytrace 55.56 - .45 - 1.92 - 3.04 -
> > > sablecc-w 42.57 - .58 - 1.06 - 2.32 -
> > > soot-j 132.93 - .69 - 1.25 - 2.26 -
> > >
> > > The conclusions are fairly obvious. Now, if only IBM had a jit for
> > > 1.2... We
> > > also evaluated shujit and tyajit, but they were unable to run most of
> > > the
> > > benchmarks correctly. Stay tuned for a comparison of NT Java Virtual
> > > Machines in
> > > the near future, on the same hardware.
> > >
> > > Permission is granted to re-distribute this e-mail in any medium as long
> > > as it
> > > remains unchanged. All trademarks belong to their respective owners.
> > >
> > > To everyone working on Java for Linux: keep up the great work! :)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Raja Vallee-Rai ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > > Sable Research Group
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
