@John, Your benchmarking does not seem consistent with this paper:
http://www.orcca.on.ca/~ldragan/synasc2005/2005-synasc-scigmark-final.pdf They show Java faster than C# on most of the benchmarks in the SciMark suite. But not the Monte Carlo simulation to calculate Pi, which is presumably the benchmark you are talking about (are you using just this benchmark or all of the SciMark benchmarks?). Note the authors of this paper used an identical, non-synchronised random number generator for all languages, therefore your comments about syncronization are addressed by their approach. On Apr 21, 5:24 am, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 20 April 2008 14:50:25 Jon Harrop wrote: > > > Running the SciMark benchmark on my 32-bit WinXP Athlon64 X2 4400+ 2Gb RAM > > machine: > > > Sun JDK 6: 385 > > .NET 3.5: 367 > > > Here .NET is 5% slower than the JVM. > > I hadn't actually noticed that the .NET port of SciMark was written by a Java > programmer who had crippled it by inserting unnecessary locks in the code. > Removing these locks for a fairer comparison, I get: > > Sun JDK 6: 385 > .NET 3.5: 396 > > So .NET is not slower at all. > > -- > Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy > Ltd.http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
