More benchmark Mono 2.0 vs Java 6 Server http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=java
Regards. Rodrigo Cuevas. Alan McGovern escribió: > Just for comparison, the java scores as from > http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/run.html : > > FFT: 206 MFLOPS > SOR: 511.8 MFLOPS > MonteCarlo: 57.2 MFLOPS > Sparse: 287.3 MFLOPS > LU 395.4 MFLOPS > Composite: 291.7 MFLOPS > > Alan. > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Alan McGovern > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Here are the results of running that assembly on several > platforms/clrs on an original Macbook, 1.86ghz core2duo. The tests > were executed in native windows and native opensuse. I didn't > bother with native macos. > > *MS.NET <http://MS.NET>* > FFT (1024): 245.115 MFLOPS > SOR (100): 469.531 MFLOPS > MonteCarlo (1024): 92.4046 MFLOPS > Sparse (1000): 298.298 MFLOPS > LU arrays (100): 547.227 MFLOPS > Composite: 330.515165 MFLOPS > * > Mono r123727, essentially mono 2.2 (opensuse 11.1)* > FFT (1024): 137.558 MFLOPS > SOR (100): 254.216 MFLOPS > MonteCarlo (1024): 73.4233 MFLOPS > Sparse (1000): 213.333 MFLOPS > LU arrays (100): 265.113 MFLOPS > Composite: 188.728742 MFLOPS > > *Mono 2.0 (Windows)* > FFT (1024): 85.3681 MFLOPS > SOR (100): 236.843 MFLOPS > MonteCarlo (1024): 13.4164 MFLOPS > Sparse (1000): 219.993 MFLOPS > LU arrays (100): 192.3 MFLOPS > Composite: 149.584219 MFLOPS > * > Mono 2.0 (opensuse 11.1)* > FFT (1024): 78.063 MFLOPS > SOR (100): 293.207 MFLOPS > MonteCarlo (1024): 15.5201 MFLOPS > Sparse (1000): 148.81 MFLOPS > LU arrays (100): 290.62 MFLOPS > Composite: 165.243985 MFLOPS > > A quick overview tells us that with the old JIT was 2x-6x slower > than MS.NET <http://MS.NET> and with the new jit performance goes > from 0.25x-2x slower. The test that used to be 6x slower is now > only 0.25x slower. Things have improved greatly since you > originally ran your benchmark so it's definitely not accurate to > call mono 3x slower than MS.NET <http://MS.NET> anymore. 1.5x > slower would be a nice median. > > Taking a slightly more detailed view tells us a few more > interesting things. Compare mono 2.0 (windows) to mono 2.0 > (opensuse). The exact same version of mono ranges between 1.5x > faster on linux (LU arrays) to 1.5x slower on linux (SPARSE). What > this tells us is that there appears to be differences in the > platform itself which make a difference performance-wise. > > It'd be great if someone could compare mono 2.2 (or higher) on > windows with MS.NET <http://MS.NET> and see what the performance > delta is when running on the same platform. So yes, this tells us > that there is still room for improvement with mono, but it's not > as huge as was originally stated. > > Alan. > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Jon Harrop <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > I ported the famous SciMark2 benchmark suite: > > http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/ > > from Java to F# and put it up here: > > http://www.ffconsultancy.com/tmp/SciMark2.zip > > Mono 2.0 runs this code ~3x slower than .NET does and, in > particular, the > integer benchmark ("Monte Carlo") is over 6x slower on Mono. > > Regards, > -- > Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. > http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e > _______________________________________________ > Mono-list maillist - [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Mono-list maillist - [email protected] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list > _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
