[ALLY] View Speed Test
[1/43] from: larry::ecotope::com at: 20-Apr-2001 16:59
Hi all, Just finished a few minor modifications to a script that Carl wrote for Link. It measures the interpreter speed, time to display bitmaps, and time for the OS to generate windows. It is on the Ecotope rebsite as speed.r. In the clipboard output below, the second column is time in seconds, and the third is the percentage performance relative to a 300 MHz Aptiva. It will be interesting if people with different machines and platforms post results to the ally-list. Please state your clock speed, CPU, OS, video card and video memory (if known). -Larry 450 Mhz PII Win 98 NVidia Riva 128 16MB Performance Test Results for Larry Palmiter Interpreter time: 0:00:01.43 227.27 Bitmap time: 0:00:01.92 208.33 OS window time: 0:00:02.91 154.64
[2/43] from: larry:ecotope at: 20-Apr-2001 21:29
Hi all, Thanks for the responses so far. Please keep the speed tests coming. I will summarize them next week. Here is a test on a second machine in my office. Dell 800MHz PIII WinME ATI Rage 128 Pro 32 MB Performance Test Results for Larry Palmiter Interpreter time: 0:00:00.77 422.08 Bitmap time: 0:00:00.6 666.67 OS window time: 0:00:01.81 248.62 -Larry
[3/43] from: collinolson:jvlnet at: 20-Apr-2001 22:13
Hi Larry, Tell my boss I new a new computer! 166MHz Pentium Win 98 unknown video card (i.e. I don't know what I have or how much video memory) Performance Test Results for Collin Olson Interpreter time: 0:00:06.81 47.72 Bitmap time: 0:00:06.48 61.73 OS window time: 0:00:19.39 23.21 -Collin.
[4/43] from: rgaither:triad:rr at: 20-Apr-2001 22:30
Hi Larry, 866 MHz PIII Win2000 Pro NVidia TNT2 M64 32MB Performance Test Results for Rod Gaither Interpreter time: 0:00:01.202 270.38 Bitmap time: 0:00:00.521 767.75 OS window time: 0:00:01.682 267.54 FYI, Rod. Rod Gaither Oak Ridge, NC - USA [rgaither--triad--rr--com]
[5/43] from: scott:dunlop:nextel at: 20-Apr-2001 23:56
Sun Ultra/5 UltraSPARC-IIi 270MHz Solaris 2.6 GX 4MB Interpreter Time: 0:00:07.52.4718 43.19 Bitmap Time: 0:00:06:721198 59.51 OS Window Time: 0:00:12.65939 35.55 266 MHz PII Win98 3Dfx Voodoo 4 32MB Interpreter time: 0:00:02.36 137.71 Bitmap time: 0:00:01.98 202.02 OS window time: 0:00:03.24 138.89 --Scott.
[6/43] from: gjones05:mail:orion at: 21-Apr-2001 4:49
> From: "Larry Palmiter" <snip> > I will summarize them next week.
From: "Brett Handley"
> Hi Larry, > > I'm expecting a View application that summarises the data using a graph
> selectable axis and each data point clickable to display the raw data. > > ;-) > > Brett.
Yes, and the data needs to be natively exportable to SPSS, SAS, Excel/Access, Paradox. And while you are at it, will you add in multi-dimensional axis display so that a click of a button will configurably redisplay the results along different axises. And add in a dynamic, continuously updated, 3 axis rotational capability ... if its not too much trouble. 8-) 500 mhz Celeron Win 98 128 MB NVidia Riva TNT2 32 MB Performance Test Results for Scott Jones Interpreter time: 0:00:01.43 227.27 Bitmap time: 0:00:02.47 161.94 OS window time: 0:00:03.52 127.84 --Scott Jones
[7/43] from: versation:home at: 21-Apr-2001 7:50
Performance Test Results for Dell pentiumPro 200 NT4 sp6 64mb S3 virge 2mb Interpreter time: 0:00:05.799 56.04 Bitmap time: 0:00:02.754 145.24 OS window time: 0:00:05.888 76.43 it's historical.
[8/43] from: philb:upnaway at: 21-Apr-2001 9:12
Hi Larry, Performance Test Results for Phil Bevan Interpreter time: 0:00:00.99 328.28 Bitmap time: 0:00:01.37 291.97 OS window time: 0:00:02.15 209.30 Pentium III 733 Win 98 NVidia TNT2 32Mb Cheers PHil
[9/43] from: rgombert:essentiel at: 21-Apr-2001 10:28
my results are : Performance Test Results for Renaud GOMBERT Interpreter time: 0:00:01.772 183.41 Bitmap time: 0:00:01.142 350.26 OS window time: 0:00:03.425 131.39 on 400 MHz PII, W2K, 512Mo RAM, Millenium G200
[10/43] from: allenk:powerup:au at: 21-Apr-2001 10:41
> 450 Mhz PII Win 98 NVidia Riva 128 16MB > > Performance Test Results for Larry Palmiter > Interpreter time: 0:00:01.43 227.27 > Bitmap time: 0:00:01.92 208.33 > OS window time: 0:00:02.91 154.64
Win2000 Celeron 333 128MB, Matrox G400 Max View Performance Test Results for Allen Kamp Interpreter time: 0:00:03.766 86.30 Bitmap time: 0:00:01.862 214.82 OS window time: 0:00:04.697 95.81 Link Performance Test Results for Allen Kamp Interpreter time: 0:00:03.906 83.20 Bitmap time: 0:00:01.642 243.60 OS window time: 0:00:04.887 92.08 Cheers, Allen K
[11/43] from: brett:codeconscious at: 21-Apr-2001 11:22
NT 4.0 PII 300 96MB 16M Voodoo Banshee Performance Test Results for Brett handley Interpreter time: 0:00:02.143 151.66 Bitmap time: 0:00:01.763 226.89 OS window time: 0:00:02.884 156.03
[12/43] from: rgaither:triad:rr at: 21-Apr-2001 11:55
Another test machine - 266MHz PII Win98 64MB NVidia Riva 128 4MB Performance Test Results for Rod Gaither Interpreter time: 0:00:02.63 123.57 Bitmap time: 0:00:02.36 169.49 OS window time: 0:00:04.89 92.02 On my earlier one below - machine has 256MB memory.
>866 MHz PIII Win2000 Pro NVidia TNT2 M64 32MB > >Performance Test Results for Rod Gaither >Interpreter time: 0:00:01.202 270.38 >Bitmap time: 0:00:00.521 767.75 >OS window time: 0:00:01.682 267.54 > >FYI, Rod.
FYI, Rod. Rod Gaither Oak Ridge, NC - USA [rgaither--triad--rr--com]
[13/43] from: larry:ecotope at: 21-Apr-2001 13:32
Hi PeO I think you might have the wrong URL. The easy (preferred) way to get the script is through the View desktop to the Ecotope site. The direct URL for the script is: http://www.nwlink.com/~ecotope1/reb/speed.r Cheers -Larry
[14/43] from: louisaturk:coxinet at: 21-Apr-2001 13:41
Performance Test Results for Pentium II 450 Windows 2000 SP1 128mb Matrox Marval G200: Interpreter time: 0:00:02.656 122.36 Bitmap time: 0:00:01.11 360.36 OS window time: 0:00:02.437 184.65 Louis
[15/43] from: gchiu:compkarori at: 21-Apr-2001 12:32
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:59:52 -0700 "Larry Palmiter" <[larry--ecotope--com]> wrote:
> for the OS to generate windows. It is on the Ecotope > rebsite as speed.r. In
Can't find it. Perhaps my ISP again :-( -- Graham Chiu
[16/43] from: brett:codeconscious at: 21-Apr-2001 14:44
Hi Larry, I'm expecting a View application that summarises the data using a graph with selectable axis and each data point clickable to display the raw data. ;-) Brett.
[17/43] from: cyphre:volny:cz at: 21-Apr-2001 15:46
Heya Larry and all, After all that hi-tek machines here is the old-skool :-) Amiga 2000, Motorola [68060--50Mhz] , CyberVision64/3D 4MB (S3 Virge Chip) Performance Test Results for Cyphre Interpreter time: 0:00:22.500001 14.44 Bitmap time: 0:00:27.699999 14.44 OS window time: 0:00:39.620001 11.36 Regards, Cyphre
> -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Palmiter [mailto:[larry--ecotope--com]]
<<quoted lines omitted: 16>>> Bitmap time: 0:00:01.92 208.33 > OS window time: 0:00:02.91 154.64
Regards -- Richard ...a one half of WEIRDDREAM e-mail: [cyphre--volny--cz] www: www.volny.cz/weirddream
[18/43] from: peoyli:algonet:se at: 21-Apr-2001 22:04
> Hi all, > > Just finished a few minor modifications to a script that Carl wrote for > Link. It measures the interpreter speed, time to display bitmaps, and time > for the OS to generate windows. It is on the Ecotope rebsite as speed.r. In
.. Can't get it.. All I get when I'm trying to connect to ecotope.com is Problem Report There was a communication problem. Message ID TCP_ERROR Problem Description The system was unable to communicate with the server. Possible Problem Cause The Web server may be down. The Web server may be too busy. The Web server may be experiencing other problems, preventing it from responding to clients. The communication path may be experiencing problems. Possible Solution Try connecting to this server later. .. I was going to run the test on something yet untested: P-II 266 @ 300Mhz, 480MB RAM, Matrox G100, Solaris 8 x86 Dual PPro 200, 128MB RAM, (some old Matrox), Solaris 7 x86 /PeO -- /* PeO - AMiGA owner since 1990, CGI, Perl, Assembly language & HTML-fanatic *\ \* Amiga 4000TE/060-50/604e 200, 146Mb, 33.4Gb, ZIP, JAZ, CVPPC/8 */ /* IIyama VM Pro 21", CP-SW2 Subwoofer system, NEC-222 *\ \* Plextor 12-Plex, Yamaha CRW 4416S, Artec A6000C+, Stylus Color 500 */ /* Lightfax 3660, Catweazel Z-II (3*IDE, 1*PC Floppy), Minolta DImage V *\ \* SCSI-Tower, Seagate Tapestor 4/8GB, Ariadne Ethernet, Minolta PagePro 6 */
[19/43] from: peoyli:algonet:se at: 21-Apr-2001 23:45
Thanks Larry, and here comes the results: 1: Amiga 4000T, AmigaOS 3.5, 68060 @ 50MHz, 146MB RAM, CVPPC 8MB Interpreter time: 0:00:36.647466 8.87 Bitmap time: 0:00:26.360424 15.17 OS window time: 0:00:33.492089 13.44 2: ABit LX6, Solarix 8 x86, P-II 266 @ 300Mhz, 480MB RAM, Matrox G100 8MB Interpreter time: 0:00:04.653049 69.85 Bitmap time: 0:00:03.559699 112.37 OS window time: 0:00:05.827202 77.22 3: Tyan Titan Pro Dual S1662D, Solaris 7 x86, 2xPPro 200MHz, 128MB RAM, Matrox Millenium 2MB Interpreter time: 0:00:03.596147 90.37 Bitmap time: 0:00:04.745319 84.29 OS window time: 0:00:05.139314 87.56 /PeO
[20/43] from: ptretter:charter at: 22-Apr-2001 10:31
Here is my output of my speedtest: Performance Test Results for Paul Tretter Interpreter time: 0:00:01.082 300.37 Bitmap time: 0:00:00.881 454.03 OS window time: 0:00:01.733 259.67 I'm running Athlon 600 on FIC SD11 motherboard with Voodoo5.
[21/43] from: peoyli:algonet:se at: 22-Apr-2001 11:39
Hmm... what screen mode did you run the test in ? Compared to my A4000T, with otherwise compareable specs, you are two to three times faster... At my system I ran the test on Workbench at 1728x1296 @ 16 bit (an odd resolution, but that what I can scare my CVPPC card and IIyama monitor up to).. /PeO
[22/43] from: limhk:acm at: 22-Apr-2001 9:12
1. AMD-K62 450 Win98SE 60MB RAM Trident CyberBlade i7 4MB Performance Test Results for Lim Hwee Kwang Interpreter time: 0:00:02.59 125.48 Bitmap time: 0:00:01.31 305.34 OS window time: 0:00:03.41 131.96 2. AMD-K62 450 Win98SE 56MB RAM Trident CyberBlade i7 8MB Performance Test Results for Lim Hwee Kwang Interpreter time: 0:00:02.04 159.31 Bitmap time: 0:00:03.13 127.80 OS window time: 0:00:04.72 95.34 Thanks. Regards Hwee Kwang
[23/43] from: johan:forsberg:6117:student:uu:se at: 22-Apr-2001 15:27
Tjena P-O :) I get the following results on my A4000, 50MHz 68060, 64M RAM, CVPPC: Performance Test Results for Johan Forsberg Interpreter time: 0:00:20.103276 16.17 Bitmap time: 0:00:14.814922 27.00 OS window time: 0:00:20.092004 22.40 About the same as Blaz's... WB screenmode is 1152x900, 16 bit. -- Johan Forsberg On 22-Apr-01, P-O Yliniemi wrote:
[24/43] from: blazs:orac:au at: 22-Apr-2001 16:03
Hello Larry On 21-Apr-01, Larry Palmiter wrote:
> Hi all, > Just finished a few minor modifications to a script that Carl wrote
<<quoted lines omitted: 12>>> Bitmap time: 0:00:01.92 208.33 > OS window time: 0:00:02.91 154.64
Performance Test Results for Blaz Segavac on Amiga 3000T, AmigaOS 3.1, 68060 @ 50MHz, 138MB RAM, CVPPC 8MB Interpreter time: 0:00:23.66 13.74 Bitmap time: 0:00:14.299999 27.97 OS window time: 0:00:18.46 24.38 Regards Blaz
[25/43] from: peoyli:algonet:se at: 22-Apr-2001 17:15
Tjå Agra :) changed screen mode to lo-res (1152x900) and re-ran the test (also disabled about every of the 2137 hacks I'm running): Performance Test Results for P-O Yliniemi Interpreter time: 0:00:28.651257 11.34 Bitmap time: 0:00:19.401998 20.62 OS window time: 0:00:24.239792 18.56 did the test on my other 4000/060 as well: A4000, AmigaOS 3.9, 68060 @ 50MHz, 70MB RAM, CV64/3D (1024x768 16 bit): Performance Test Results for P-O Yliniemi Interpreter time: 0:00:20.357916 15.96 Bitmap time: 0:00:18.181743 22.00 OS window time: 0:00:24.32275 18.50 The difference between the 060 systems is that the first of them has its 68060 on a CSPPC card, while the other one is a CS MK-II. Maybe this is causing the speed difference ? /PeO
[26/43] from: blazs:orac:au at: 23-Apr-2001 0:11
Hello P-O On 22-Apr-01, P-O Yliniemi wrote:
> Hmm... what screen mode did you run the test in ? Compared to my > A4000T, with otherwise compareable specs, you are two to three times > faster... > > At my system I ran the test on Workbench at 1728x1296 @ 16 bit (an > odd resolution, but that what I can scare my CVPPC card and IIyama > monitor up to)..
I'm running a 1024x768x24bit @ 71Hz refresh screen mode. I decided to go for a 24bit display to get those nice gradients in REBOL looking really nice =)...and 1024x768 was the highest resolution I could push my monitor too and have a decent refresh rate (I can't hack the 60Hz flicker).
> /PeO >> Hello Larry
<<quoted lines omitted: 11>>>> Regards >> Blaz
[27/43] from: ingo:2b1 at: 23-Apr-2001 10:11
... and here are the results from Ingo Hohmann ... Pentium 90, 40MB Debian/Gnu Linux 2.2r0 XDisplay over Ethernet on Pentium III 900, 128MB, Nvidia 2MX Debian/Gnu Linux 2.2r0 with XFree86 4.0.2 Performance Test Results for Ingo Hohmann Interpreter time: 0:00:15.201646 21.38 Bitmap time: 0:01:17.516272 22.84 OS window time: 0:00:28.856306 15.59 Pentium III 900, 128MB, NVidia 2MX Debian/Gnu Linux 2.2r0 with XFree86 4.0.2 Performance Test Results for Ingo Hohmann Interpreter time: 0:00:01.342511 242.08 Bitmap time: 0:00:03.705044 107.96 OS window time: 0:00:07.567857 59.46 Pentium III 900, 128MB, NVidia 2MX Windows ME Performance Test Results for Ingo Hohmann Interpreter time: 0:00:00.88 369.32 Bitmap time: 0:00:01.7 235.29 OS window time: 0:00:02.47 182.19 The thing I don't at all like is the difference between the Windows and Linux Versions on the same computer. kind regards, Ingo
[28/43] from: larry:ecotope at: 23-Apr-2001 12:22
Hi Jussi You wrote: Weird, something seems to be a bit buggy with the percentages. Well, I do not care. Yes, very buggy. Thanks for catching it. Carl forgot about minutes and (heaven forbid) hours. Sorry everyone, I should have caught that the first time around. The script has been fixed to show correct percentages. I will correct the results from the posts when I summarize them, so no need to resubmit. The new script is on the Ecotope rebsite or directly at http://www.nwlink.com/~ecotope1/reb/speed.r If using the desktop, be sure to reload the script, or even better, delete the file from the nwlink.com/~ecotope1/reb directory under view-root/public. Please keep the speed tests coming in, it is getting interesting. I have about 25 emails so far covering about 30 machines. I would like to see more from dual boot machines, also some results for fast *nix boxes using X. Anyone think they have the fastest machine? the slowest machine? Anyone with a Mac? Some times for BE Os? Cheers -Larry
[29/43] from: pa:russo:perd at: 23-Apr-2001 11:11
>... and here are the results from Ingo Hohmann ... > >... > >The thing I don't at all like is the difference >between the Windows and Linux Versions on the >same computer. >
I'm not surprised. I like Linux as much as I dislike Windoze, but X-Windows is not famous for its velocity (nor it was borne to be quick, to be true). Greetings -- Paolo Russo [pa--russo--perd--com] _________________ PERD s.r.l. Virtual Technologies for Real Solutions http://www.perd.com
[30/43] from: brian:hawley at: 23-Apr-2001 12:51
Just what's in front of me... Celeron 400, ATI 3D Rage IIC AGP, Win2K Pro, 192mb ram: Performance Test Results for Brian Hawley Interpreter time: 0:00:02.814 115.49 Bitmap time: 0:00:01.402 285.31 OS window time: 0:00:04.317 104.24 133 mhz Pentium laptop, Win98SE, 48mb ram: Performance Test Results for Brian Hawley Interpreter time: 0:00:12.36 26.29 Bitmap time: 0:00:14.94 26.77 OS window time: 0:00:22.3 20.18 Brian Hawley
[31/43] from: jhagman:infa:abo:fi at: 23-Apr-2001 17:01
Quoting Carl Read ([carl--cybercraft--co--nz]):
> Amiga 1200, [68030--50mhz], Ateo Concepts Pixel64 GFX card. > > Interpreter time: 0:01:59.631728 5.45 > Bitmap time: 0:00:47.675712 8.39 > OS window time: 0:00:51.121089 8.80 > > Anyone slower than that? (:
You bet! :) Amiga 1200, [68030--28MHz] (I would guess), AGA (productivity mode, 128 colors) Interpreter time: 0:03:56.377559 5.76 Bitmap time: 0:06:30.8026 12.99 OS window time: 0:02:22.525416 19.98 PAL 640x256 16 Colors: Interpreter time: 0:03:49.934025 6.51 Bitmap time: 0:08:06.955525 57.51 OS window time: 0:01:49.183388 9.15 Weird, something seems to be a bit buggy with the percentages. Well, I do not care.
> Out of interest, is there much difference in performance when running > View on different OSs on the same machines? Windows, Linux, BSD > etc.?
On my AMD [K6-2--450MHz] with ATI Charger I have tested the Linux and BeOS versions of View. As one could assume BeOS is much faster on bitmap and OS window time. I have no numbers of BeOS at the moment though. Linux, PC above: Interpreter time: 0:00:02.722577 119.37 Bitmap time: 0:00:05.355719 74.69 OS window time: 0:00:12.362731 36.40 and as you can see, the gfx card is crap :) -- Jussi Hagman CS in Åbo Akademi University Studentbyn 4 D 33 [juhagman--abo--fi] 20540 Åbo [jhagman--infa--abo--fi] Finland
[32/43] from: carl:cybercraft at: 23-Apr-2001 19:04
On 22-Apr-01, Richard Smolak wrote:
> Heya Larry and all, > After all that hi-tek machines here is the old-skool :-)
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>> Bitmap time: 0:00:27.699999 14.44 > OS window time: 0:00:39.620001 11.36
You call that old?!! ... Amiga 1200, [68030--50mhz], Ateo Concepts Pixel64 GFX card. Interpreter time: 0:01:59.631728 5.45 Bitmap time: 0:00:47.675712 8.39 OS window time: 0:00:51.121089 8.80 Anyone slower than that? (: Out of interest, is there much difference in performance when running View on different OSs on the same machines? Windows, Linux, BSD etc.? Many of you must be dual-booting. -- Carl Read [carl--cybercraft--co--nz]
[33/43] from: carl:cybercraft at: 23-Apr-2001 20:44
On 23-Apr-01, Ingo Hohmann wrote:
> ... and here are the results from Ingo Hohmann ... > Pentium 90, 40MB Debian/Gnu Linux 2.2r0
<<quoted lines omitted: 20>>> between the Windows and Linux Versions on the > same computer.
Chuckle - I just asked that question. Need more such comparisons though, I think.
> kind regards, > Ingo
-- Carl Read [carl--cybercraft--co--nz]
[34/43] from: jhagman:infa:abo:fi at: 24-Apr-2001 21:18
Quoting Larry Palmiter ([larry--ecotope--com]):
> Anyone with a Mac? Some times for BE Os?
If I am not mistaken the Mac version is not out yet. Here comes results for BeOS R5 x86: Performance Test Results for A Rebol Interpreter time: 0:00:02.473815 131.38 Bitmap time: 0:00:02.888204 138.49 OS window time: 0:00:05.351347 84.09 And Win98: Performance Test Results for A Rebol Interpretef time: 0:00:02.86 113.64 Bitmap time: 0:00:06.1 65.57 OS window time: 0:00:06.37 70.64 The machine is same as before AMD K6-2 450MHz, ATI Charger 8MB, enough physical memory. -- Jussi Hagman CS in Åbo Akademi University Studentbyn 4 D 33 [juhagman--abo--fi] 20540 Åbo [jhagman--infa--abo--fi] Finland
[35/43] from: larry:ecotope at: 7-May-2001 17:03
Hi PeO Thanks, I will add it to the database. I have 43 machine test results so far. And I really will do some summaries soon. New test results from others on the list are still welcome. The script is at http://www.nwlink.com/~ecotope1/speed.r -Larry
[36/43] from: larry:ecotope at: 7-May-2001 18:52
Hi Brett Good idea. Consider it done. I reduced the auxiliary info to just the cpu speed in MHz. Folks should also feel free to email the clipboard results with added info directly to me. -Larry
[37/43] from: larry:ecotope at: 7-May-2001 21:55
Hi Joel Sorry, I was typing too fast. Try http://www.nwlink.com/~ecotope1/reb/speed.r -Larry
[38/43] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 7-May-2001 23:05
Larry Palmiter wrote:
> ... The script is at > > http://www.nwlink.com/~ecotope1/speed.r >
When I try to hit that link with a browser, I get Not Found The requested URL /~ecotope1/speed.r was not found on this server. and (of course) REBOL/View complains Cannot find http://www.nwlink.com/~ecotope1/speed.r when I try it in the "goto" menu. -jn-
[39/43] from: peoyli:algonet:se at: 8-May-2001 1:24
More results from my computer-room: :) Dell Latitude CPx H500GT, Solaris 7 x86, P-III 500MHz, 128Mb RAM, ATI Rage Mobility M1, 8Mb at 1024x768, 24 bit on local TFT Interpreter time: 0:00:02.392482 135.84 Bitmap time: 0:00:05.616684 71.22 OS window time: 0:00:07.333078 61.37 Have no windoze on this machine yet, maybe after writing the Solaris 7 installation guide for this one.. /PeO
[40/43] from: larry:ecotope at: 8-May-2001 9:51
> Wasn't the speed test's initial goal to compare the REBOL/View speed
> different platforms and graphic adapters ? So, removing the extra info
> give a very unfair comparision between the CPUs..
I think Carl's original intent was simply to get a quick indicator of the speed of View in each of the three categories of the test. Like many benchmarks, the test is far too simple and short to really evaluate CPUs, but the results are interesting none the less. The email pop-up will take any line of text so folks can also enter cpu make, video card, video memory, etc., if they wish. I meant to say only that I would discard any results lacking cpu speed. There are several important variables not generally present in the data received so far, for instance screen display resolution and color depth, system bus speed, ram chip speeds, cpu cache specs, video memory and display speed, etc. While these factors can be useful in understanding particularly high or low times for a given cpu speed, they introduce so many variables that it would require hundreds of test results overall in order to be able to at least partially quantify the influence of each factor.
> Would also be interesting if everyone could add a RC5 benchmark to their > results, since this test seems to give very small differences between OSes > on the same system. >
I am not familiar with RC5. I would guess that scripts which don't use view/vid (like my loop-timer.r script) would run at comparable speeds with different OS on same box. -Larry
[41/43] from: peoyli:algonet:se at: 8-May-2001 9:55
Wasn't the speed test's initial goal to compare the REBOL/View speed between different platforms and graphic adapters ? So, removing the extra info will give a very unfair comparision between the CPUs.. Would also be interesting if everyone could add a RC5 benchmark to their results, since this test seems to give very small differences between OSes on the same system. /PeO
[42/43] from: brett:codeconscious at: 8-May-2001 10:24
Hey Larry, Perhaps the script could email you directly with the results rather than this list? :) Brett.
[43/43] from: peoyli:algonet:se at: 10-May-2001 1:53
..and another test on the Latitude.. Dell Latitude CPx H500GT, win98, P-III 500MHz, 128Mb RAM, ATI Rage Mobility M1, 8Mb at 1024x768, 24 bit on local TFT Performance Test Results for P-O Yliniemi Interpreter time: 0:00:01.15 282.61 Bitmap time: 0:00:00.71 563.38 OS window time: 0:00:01.87 240.64 .. Notice the really enormous difference between /View on windoze and /View on Solaris (using exactly the same configuration gave me 135.84, 71.22 and 61.37 using Solaris).. Shouldn't 'Interpreter time' be the same between the OSes on the same machine ?
> > > > Would also be interesting if everyone could add a RC5 benchmark to their
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>> view/vid (like my loop-timer.r script) would run at comparable speeds with > different OS on same box.
The RC5/OGR client uses an optimized core for the CPU it finds, but the speed results are quite comparable between different OSes on the same machine, at least within 10% of each other. Just about to run the RC5 client on win at the laptop to see the results there.. Laptop results for DNETC client's benchmark test (http://www.distributed.net) RC5 Solaris 1,393,046.37 keys/s win 1,403,556.09 keys/s --diff-- win about +7% OGR Solaris 3,106,630.25 nodes/s win 3,426,231.61 nodes/s --diff-- win about +10% I will try out your loop-timer.r script to see if I get comparable results between OSes on the other solaris/win box... btw.. I like the speed of my laptop :) /PeO
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted