I ran a similar test the other day. Here are my timings with (fibo 33) and
 (cFibo 33)

I'm including cFibo (since I can now run it on emu64) and ersatz.

emu64: 21.632 sec
emu64/cFibo: 0.111 sec
pil32: 4.477 sec
ersatz: 12.797 sec




On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de>wrote:

> Hi Jon,
>
> > I installed the latest "ongoing" (v3.1.0.12) on my iMac, and
> > compared the timing results of (bench (fibo 33)). Not too useful, I
> > was just curious. ;-)
>
> Yeah, interesting :)
>
>
> > pil32: 0.804 sec
> > emu64: 10.032 sec
> >
> > My EmuLisp in Safari: 5.82 sec
> > My EmuLisp in Chrome: 8.102 sec
> > My EmuLisp in Chromium: 8.261 sec
> >
> > The fibo used in all cases was this:
> > (de fibo (N) (if (>= 2 N) 1 (+ (fibo (dec N)) (fibo (- N 2)))))
> >
> > And the returned value was 3524578. ;-)
>
> If I try this on an x86-64 machine having all of them installed (pil32,
> pil64 and emu64), I get:
>
>    pil32:   0.89 sec
>    pil64:   0.42 sec
>    emu64:   12.3 sec
>
> All quite similar (with the same result, 3524578).
>
>
> I did also tests with the chess program, getting similar relations. You
> can let play it against itself, with e.g.:
>
>    $ time ./pil games/chess.l -main -'do 12 (msg (go))' -bye
>
>
> A database stress, however, running 40 concurrent processes hammering
> data into the database, showed a drop in speed for emu of only a factor
> of three. Here the bottleneck is in file I/O, locking etc.
>
> Cheers,
> - Alex
> --
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
>

Reply via email to