Good question, but I don't think I have a good answer. I get the same smaller performance improvement you show with the 400x400 matrix. However the 800x800 improves by 13.5%.
Partially this has to do with the relative number of rows to elements. The more rows, the more times you have to go get the row arrays which burns some of the time being saved. But that doesn't explain why a square matrix is particularly unimpressive, or why the 800 square improves more than the 400 square. I'm still thinking, but if someone else has an explanation.... The example uses double arrays. You might want to see if you get the same results for integers if that's what you use. I don't see why it would matter, but I've been surprised before! Alan =========================================================================== To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
