[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: benchmark 1.10

From: John A. Turner
Subject: Re: benchmark 1.10
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:21:35 -0700

Francesco Potorti` writes:


 > The new benchmark is for octave 2.0.5 and can be found, as usual, in
 > <URL:>, while the results are in
 > <URL:> (mirrors welcome).  No new
 > results have been added yet.
 > Everyone is encouraged to run the benchmark with octave 2.0.5 and send
 > the results to me.
 > I have not added yet the results for Alpha because I cannot find a
 > moment when the machine is idle, but it seems that, with respect to
 > version 1.1.1, the for loop is about 30% faster (expected), the
 > differential equation test is about 10% faster (expected), and the
 > Schur decomposition is about 30% slower (unexpected!).


While I applaud this effort, I took a look at the results, and there
is far to little information from which to draw real conclusions.

Each entry should include:

o a more complete hardware specification.  For example, one of the
  entries is "Ultra 1".  Is that a 1/140, a 1/170, or a 1/200?  They
  have three different clock speeds.

  Maybe nitpicking, but there's a listing for an Ultra 167.  There's
  no such thing.  It must actually be a 1/170.  (I'm omitting the E
  because it shouldn't matter.)

  It's difficult, though, because should it be the model or the chip?
  For example, there's an entry for a "DEC Alpha 400".  It must be one
  of the models with a 400MHz A21164 chip, and that's probably more
  important than the actual model.

  Still, I'm thinking the precise model should be listed, maybe with
  additional columns for the chip and clock speed.  Something like the
  SPECmark table at does.
  Here's an excerpt:

System            CPU        ClkMHz  Cache      SPECint SPECfp  Info  Source
Name              (NUMx)Type ext/in  Ext+I/D    base95  base95  Date  Obtained
================= ========== ======= ========== ======= ======= ===== =========
DEC 8[24]00/5/300 A21164     75/300  4M+96+8/8    7.43   11.7   Feb96 Digital
DEC 8[24]00/5/350 A21164     88/350  4M+96+8/8    8.82   13.2   Feb96 Digital
DEC 8[24]00/5/440 A21164     88/440  4M+96+8/8   11.2    16.0   Oct96 Digital
Intel XXpress     Pentium    66/166  1M+8/8       4.76    3.37  Jan96
Intel Alder       PentiumPro 166     512+8/8      7.11    5.47  Jan96
Intel Alder       PentiumPro 200     256+8/8      8.09    5.99  Jan96
SGI O2-R5kSC      R5000      180     512+32/32    4.76    5.37  Oct96 www.specb
SGI Indigo2-R10k  R10000     195     1M+32/32     8.50   10.2   Jul96 www.specb
Sun SS10/40       SuprSP     40      20/16        1.06    1.13  Mar96 c.bmarks
Sun SS[45]/110    MicroSP2   110     16/8         1.37    1.88  Mar96 c.bmarks
Sun Ultra1/140    UltraSP    71/143  512+16/16    4.52    7.73  Mar96 c.bmarks
Sun Ultra1/170    UltraSP    83/167  512+16/16    5.26    8.45  Mar96 c.bmarks

o a precise specification of the operating system, including the
  version (e.g. SunOS 4.1.3, Solaris 2.5.1, etc.).

o a precise specification of the compiler used to compile Octave,
  including version *and compile flags*.  Also, whether an F77
  compiler was used for the Fortran, and if so, version and compile
  flags for it.

So again, I applaud the effort, but it's difficult to do any real
comparison without the entire picture.

John Turner

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]