Hey, Yeah, I'm familiar with those tests, yet I don't place that much faith in them as a cross language comparison. Some benchmarks use an optimized version in one language and a very inefficient one in another language which makes comparing results pretty useless.
The scimark benchmark posted here is a *lot* more useful because it's the exact same code running on different platforms and versions of the .NET framework. Alan. On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Rodrigo Cuevas <[email protected]> wrote: > More benchmark Mono 2.0 vs Java 6 Server > > http://shootout Repl > .alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=java<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
