On Tuesday 22 April 2008 08:39:03 hlovatt wrote: > @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?).
I quoted the combined figures for all benchmarks. The individual figures are: Java: FFT 326 Jacobi 499 Monte C 71.8 Sparse 446 LU 579 C# .NET: FFT 325 Jacobi 505 Monte C 96.5 Sparse 415 LU 629 As you can see, the Monte Carlo benchmark is several times faster (was 27.0) without the unnecessary lock and the performance is basically identical between Java and C#. > 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. They benchmarked an extremely old version of .NET that predated generics. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
