Am Samstag, 4. September 2010, 13:22:36 schrieb Jaroslav Hajek: > Hmm, the Octave-related information is sadly outdated :( Probably > still based on Octave 3.0.x. I believe 3.2.x would also perform better > in the benchmarks. > In addition I have some severe doubts about the reliability of the tests, I look through the table and found for a 2000x2000 matrix multiply octave 18.664 R 0.070 Comparing the performance of a matrix multiply in R and octave does not give me any hint that R outperforms (even the old 3.0 version of octave) by a factor 266 (?!?) but gives comparable speed. Looks like the testers did not recognize that a*b is not the same in octave and R but that in R one has to write %*% for matrix multiplication and they compare component wise multiplication in R with full matrix multiplication in octave. Not very promising from my point of view.
- Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: Show off your parallel programming skills. Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
