comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » Intel iMac IDL performance

Home » Public Forums » archive » Intel iMac IDL performance

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: Intel iMac IDL performance [message #47776 is a reply to message #47652]

Tue, 28 February 2006 12:55

JD Smith
Messages: 850
Registered: December 1999

Senior Member

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:28:26 -0600, Kenneth Bowman wrote:

> In article <pan.2006.02.27.22.35.29.385927@as.arizona.edu>,
> JD Smith <jdsmith@as.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>> Good news. Can you try running your benchmark a few time, Ken? Rosetta
>> is not an emulator, but a caching code translator. When it encounters
>> code it has already translated, it simply uses its cached version of
>> that, which should run somewhat faster, so it's not unusual to have the
>> second and later runs of a given benchmark speed up. Can you also run:
>>
>> IDL> time_test3
>>
>> a few times? On my PB G4, that takes 3.6s/0.13s total/geom. mean.
>> Sadly, I expect the iBook Intel/MacBook Pro to beat these numbers even
>> under Rosetta. One other good one to try:
>>
>> IDL> a=randomu(sd,100L*!CPU.TPOOL_MIN_ELTS) IDL> t=systime(1) &
>> a=sqrt(a)/(a>0.5) & print,systime(1)-t
>>
>> which shows how well the threading is working on ~40MB of data. On my
>> PBG4, this takes 1.8s.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> JD
>
> Hi, JD.
>
> I ran JD's benchmark, along with time_test3 and my personal benchmark.
> The results are summarized here:
>
> http://idl.tamu.edu/mac_bench.php
>
> I ran all tests 3 times. Variations between individual runs was at the
> 10% level. (Re-running did not produce significant changes in speed.)
>
> The Intel iMac is faster than my (relatively new) PowerBook G4, but slower
> than a high end G5 desktop.
>
> Multi-threading on the quad-processor G5 seems to work quite well.
>
> I ran a few other non-IDL tests. TeX, with the TeXshop front-end, is
> amazingly fast.

Thanks, Ken. As anticipated, it seems the PBG4 is worse at running
IDL PPC code than an emulated Intel Core Duo at 20% higher clock
speed. Ouch. You might add (Rosetta) or something to that Intel iMac
column in case your link turns up on Google for the ever popular
"Intel iMac benchmark" search. Also, can you list the IDL version?
When 6.4 or 6.3.x or whatever comes compiled for Intel, we can re-do
things. My bet: faster than the quad-G5 in time_test3, slower (but
not by much) in my thread-heavy test. Makes me want to find someone
to revive the IDLSPEC of years past. Anyone?

JD

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Intel iMac IDL performance By: K. Bowman on Mon, 27 February 2006 13:09
		Re: Intel iMac IDL performance By: K. Bowman on Wed, 01 March 2006 06:44
		Re: Intel iMac IDL performance By: Richard French on Tue, 28 February 2006 14:53
		Re: Intel iMac IDL performance By: K. Bowman on Tue, 28 February 2006 13:25
		Re: Intel iMac IDL performance By: JD Smith on Tue, 28 February 2006 12:55
		Re: Intel iMac IDL performance By: JD Smith on Tue, 28 February 2006 09:07
		Re: Intel iMac IDL performance By: Wolf Schweitzer on Mon, 13 March 2006 09:59
		Re: Intel iMac IDL performance By: JD Smith on Mon, 20 March 2006 08:19

Previous Topic:	Re: formatting exponential notation
Next Topic:	Database vs. File Parsing

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 14:11:50 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00388 seconds