comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado

Home » Public Forums » archive » speed comparison of IDL, numPy, Matlab
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: speed comparison of IDL, numPy, Matlab [message #23678 is a reply to message #23666] Mon, 12 February 2001 04:19 Go to previous message
Gavrie is currently offline  Gavrie
Messages: 1
Registered: February 2001
Junior Member
In article <3A7EEE5C.6419B707@pacific.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Benyang Tang <btang@pacific.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

[...]

> * Machine: a dual Intel Xeon 550 MHz box with 1GB ram, running RedHat
Linux
> 6.2. The machine was not doing any serious service, so the test code
should
> have had close to 100% of the resources.

Well, I don't know how you got these results on a
dual Xeon 550 with 1G of RAM.
I ran the same benchmarks on a dual PIII-550 with
256MB of RAM, and got:

> python:
multiplication of 100X100 matrixes takes 0.02
multiplication of 200X200 matrixes takes 0.20
multiplication of 300X300 matrixes takes 1.07
multiplication of 400X400 matrixes takes 2.81
multiplication of 500X500 matrixes takes 5.49
multiplication of 600X600 matrixes takes 9.58

> matlab:

multiplication of 100X100 matrixes takes 0.01
multiplication of 200X200 matrixes takes 0.06
multiplication of 300X300 matrixes takes 0.15
multiplication of 400X400 matrixes takes 0.35
multiplication of 500X500 matrixes takes 0.68
multiplication of 600X600 matrixes takes 1.19

So, this difference seems a bit strange, doesn't
it?
I'm using MATLAB 6 (whichis supposed to be
*slower* than 5.3), and Python 1.5.2.

-- Gavrie Philipson.


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Serial Port access
Next Topic: multiple filters

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Mon Oct 13 04:30:04 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.80556 seconds