Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado
I am about to order some flavor of IDL (Mac or Unix) and I'm wondering if anyone can help me gauge just how much performance I loose by getting the Mac product. (This saves me enough money to buy a Q630 cpu) I have a SG Iris Indigo with lots of memory and some disk space that I could be using for IDL, or I could put it on the aforementioned Q630. If intense image processing were among my requirements it would be a pretty easy decision, but the data that I'll be working on is basically about 16 or 32 128x128 matrices - not too big of a problem from a graphic standpoint (I suppose I would rarely need to look at more than 1 128x128 image at a time, for instance) This problem has a lot of number crunching - 128x128 non linear least squares fits of at least 4 parameters per fit. Any comments? Any experience using IDL on a 68040? TIA, Joe Smith
In article <3mhc42$6lt@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, smithjp@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Joseph Smith) wrote: > I am about to order some flavor of IDL (Mac or Unix) and > I'm wondering if anyone can help me gauge just how much performance > I loose by getting the Mac product. (This saves me enough money > to buy a Q630 cpu) Hi Joe - I've been using IDL on a Mac IIfx for the last month or so and on a Sun SPARCstation 10 for the last couple years. I also had a chance to run the native demo version of IDL on a PowerMac 7100/66 (my quick and informal testing put the PowerMac at about 75% the speed of the SS-10). The Mac IIfx runs IDL pretty well on applications that don't require a lot of memory or disk access. I have one (lots of 16-bit graphics and array manipualtions) that I was playing with today that requires about 60 MB of RAM (the IIfx only has 20 MB, so the rest was VM). As I expected, performance was pretty poor, but it ran correctly. If you already have the Q630, I think it would be adequate for what you are intending to run on it. If not, I'd get a PowerMac instead. You can download a Mac demo version (10 minute not 30 day due to Mac license managers) from gateway.rsinc.com to try out on your Q630 to get a decent idea. -- Rhonda Schienle Email: kid@visdata.com Licensed Massage Therapist on California's Central Coast
Chris Jacobsen (jacobsen@xray1.physics.sunysb.edu) wrote: : The CPU in a pentium is within hailing distance of the CPU of new : unix workstations. If that's the only issue, a PC is a good platform : for IDL in terms of bang for the buck. : For me, a big issue is memory. For image processing, : we will frequently end up with several 1024x1024 complex floating : point arrays at 8 MB memory each. We can afford to have one $10,000 : unix workstation with 128 or even 256 MB of memory and a half-dozen : X terminals so that one or two people can do image processing at any : moment. We cannot afford to put 128 MB of memory in each of half a : dozen PCs. Also, nobody ever screws up AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS : on the unix workstation... So get the PC, put 128MB and Linux to it. IDL 4.0 is announced for Linux Then connect your XTerms to it and enjoy. Peter ------------------ Peter 'PIT' Suetterlin ----------------- | Kiepenheuer Institut | Sternfreunde Breisgau e.V | | fuer Sonnenphysik | | | 0761/3198-210 | 0761/71571 | -<ps@kis.uni-freiburg.de>-<suettpet@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>--
In article <3mllmh$97r@adam.cc.sunysb.edu>, Chris Jacobsen <jacobsen@xray1.physics.sunysb.edu> wrote: > The CPU in a pentium is within hailing distance of the CPU of new > unix workstations. If that's the only issue, a PC is a good platform > for IDL in terms of bang for the buck. I know this isn't alt.intel.vs.the.world, but which CPU of which new workstation is which P5 within hailing distance of? A low-end SPARCstation? An AlphaStation 250 4/266? A 60 MHz P5? 100 MHz? > For me, a big issue is memory. For image processing, > we will frequently end up with several 1024x1024 complex floating > point arrays at 8 MB memory each. We can afford to have one $10,000 > unix workstation with 128 or even 256 MB of memory and a half-dozen > X terminals so that one or two people can do image processing at any > moment. We cannot afford to put 128 MB of memory in each of half a > dozen PCs. Also, nobody ever screws up AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS > on the unix workstation... Actually, for a single user, the PC or Mac platform often makes more sense, simply because the memory is cheaper and the single user can do the image processing whenever he/she wants to. It's really a question of what octane, memory, and display options your application(s) require)s(. Joe Gurman -- J.B. Gurman / Solar Physics Branch/ NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/ Greenbelt MD 20771 USA / gurman@uvsp.gsfc.nasa.gov | Federal employees are still prohibited from holding opinions while| | at work. Therefore, any opinions expressed herein are somebody | | else's. |
>> I know this isn't alt.intel.vs.the.world, but which CPU of which new >> workstation is which P5 within hailing distance of? A low-end >> SPARCstation? An AlphaStation 250 4/266? A 60 MHz P5? 100 MHz? I ran IDL's time_test on a Pentium 90, and it took ~17 seconds. I then ran it on a DEC Alpha, and it took ~35 seconds. Grant it, the Alpha had about 40 processes going at the time, but the point is, the Pentium 90 is mighty quick.
I have recently taken delivery of a new SPARCstation 20, primarily for running IDL applications. I was a bit dismayed to see that my TIME_TEST benchmark was about 17.5 secs. Earlier entries in this thread have shown pentiums running better than this (15 secs, if I recall) Have I wasted my money? Or is TIME_TEST not a good measure. Obviously, my SPARCstation has more memory (64Mb + 64Mb virtual) but I could have bought this amount on memory for a pentium and still saved enough for a jolly to Bali.....in fact, I need a PC too, for running WP apps amd the like (no WABI comments, please), so I estimate I could have saved about =A38k ($12k) As I am "sole user" on my system, configuration issues aren't really a problem. Comments, anyone? Fergus =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D | Fergus Gallagher | | Remote Sensing Applications Development Unit | | British National Space Centre | | Monks Wood | | Huntingdon PE17 2LS / UK | | | | F.Gallagher@nerc.ac.uk | | http://uh.nmt.ac.uk/bnsc/fgg.html | =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
In article <D70BB9.6u1@mv.mv.com>, kennealy@mv.mv.com (Jack Kennealy) writes: > daft@debussy.crd.ge.com (Chris Daft) writes: > >> I second the request for some comparison of IDL's performance on >> various CPUs. Our test results: ========================== IDL ============================== IDL performance test (TIME_TEST and GRAPHICS_TIMES) Notes: (1) cd to a local disk before running the test, e.g. /tmp (2) use the second run (swap already allocated) (3) maybe do a .run time_test before running. computations graphics SS20/61/SX, 96MB, Solaris 2.3 14.2s 3.4s Solaris 2.4 13.2s SS10/51/SX, 96MB, Solaris 2.4 16.7s 4.9s SS10/dual 90MHz Hypersparc, 96MB, Solaris 2.3 13.8s 2.7s 160MB, Solaris 2.4 13.7s 2.9s SS10/51/GX, 96MB, SunOS 4.1.3 14.8s 4.0s 690MP/4proc/TGX, 128MB, SunOs 4.1.3 44.6s 7.7s SS2/1proc/GS 64MB SunOs 4.1.3 48.2s 15.2s Sun IPC/CG3 32MB SunOs 4.1.3 72.5s Robert Velthuizen (velt@rad.usf.edu), Digital Medical Imaging Program of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute at the University of South Florida, Tampa FL 33612.
velt@rad.usf.edu (Robert Velthuizen (DMIP)) writes: > Our test results: > ========================== IDL ============================== > IDL performance test (TIME_TEST and GRAPHICS_TIMES) > Notes: > (1) cd to a local disk before running the test, e.g. /tmp > (2) use the second run (swap already allocated) > (3) maybe do a .run time_test before running. > computations graphics > SS20/61/SX, 96MB, Solaris 2.3 14.2s 3.4s > Solaris 2.4 13.2s > SS10/51/SX, 96MB, Solaris 2.4 16.7s 4.9s > SS10/dual 90MHz Hypersparc, > 96MB, Solaris 2.3 13.8s 2.7s > 160MB, Solaris 2.4 13.7s 2.9s > SS10/51/GX, 96MB, SunOS 4.1.3 14.8s 4.0s > 690MP/4proc/TGX, > 128MB, SunOs 4.1.3 44.6s 7.7s > SS2/1proc/GS 64MB SunOs 4.1.3 48.2s 15.2s > Sun IPC/CG3 32MB SunOs 4.1.3 72.5s Let me add one more machine: HP 9000/735 140Mb HP-UX A.09.05 10.1s 2.3s Ray Sterner sterner@tesla.jhuapl.edu The Johns Hopkins University North latitude 39.16 degrees. Applied Physics Laboratory West longitude 76.90 degrees. Laurel, MD 20723-6099 WWW Home page: ftp://fermi.jhuapl.edu/www/s1r/people/res/res.html
Ray Sterner (sterner@strdev.jhuapl.edu) wrote: : velt@rad.usf.edu (Robert Velthuizen (DMIP)) writes: : >Our test results: : >========================== IDL ============================== : >IDL performance test (TIME_TEST and GRAPHICS_TIMES) : >Notes: : > (1) cd to a local disk before running the test, e.g. /tmp : > (2) use the second run (swap already allocated) : > (3) maybe do a .run time_test before running. : > computations graphics : >SS20/61/SX, 96MB, Solaris 2.3 14.2s 3.4s : > Solaris 2.4 13.2s : >SS10/51/SX, 96MB, Solaris 2.4 16.7s 4.9s : >SS10/dual 90MHz Hypersparc, : > 96MB, Solaris 2.3 13.8s 2.7s : > 160MB, Solaris 2.4 13.7s 2.9s : >SS10/51/GX, 96MB, SunOS 4.1.3 14.8s 4.0s : >690MP/4proc/TGX, : > 128MB, SunOs 4.1.3 44.6s 7.7s : >SS2/1proc/GS 64MB SunOs 4.1.3 48.2s 15.2s : >Sun IPC/CG3 32MB SunOs 4.1.3 72.5s : Let me add one more machine: : HP 9000/735 140Mb HP-UX A.09.05 10.1s 2.3s Allthough maybe not completely comparable, as it is PV-WAVE (still waiting for the IDL-Version) using the time_test of IDL 3.61a: 486DX/2-80 16MB Linux 1.2.5 30.2s 7.8s (1MB S3 card 8bit) ------------------ Peter 'PIT' Suetterlin ----------------- | Kiepenheuer Institut | Sternfreunde Breisgau e.V | | fuer Sonnenphysik | | | 0761/3198-210 | 0761/71571 | -<ps@kis.uni-freiburg.de>-<suettpet@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>--