I have a benchmark with the infamous byte benchmark repeated 10000
times.
The timings with mpeforth,swiftforth,lina and optimised-lina and gforth-fast >are reasonably reproducible, say at most 10 percent, Mo sly better.
E.g.
time 2>&1 nice -20 gforth-fast ./sieve10k.frt
give 3.3 seconds on my AMD 64 bit 4Ghz, all the time.
However
time 2>&1 nice -20 gforth ./sieve10k.frt
gives 6.5 seconds and then the second time e.g. 4.2 seconds.
What makes gforth 0.7.3 behave differently?
gforth plain
5.97user 0.00system 0:05.97elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 3104maxresident)k >0inputs+0outputs (0major+399minor)pagefaults 0swaps
I have a benchmark with the infamous byte benchmark repeated 10000[..]
times.
The timings with mpeforth,swiftforth,lina and optimised-lina and gforth-fast are reasonably reproducible, say at most 10 percent, Mo sly better.
E.g.
time 2>&1 nice -20 gforth-fast ./sieve10k.frt
give 3.3 seconds on my AMD 64 bit 4Ghz, all the time.
However
time 2>&1 nice -20 gforth ./sieve10k.frt
gives 6.5 seconds and then the second time e.g. 4.2 seconds.
What makes gforth 0.7.3 behave differently?
On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 6:50:29 PM UTC+2, none albert wrote:
I have a benchmark with the infamous byte benchmark repeated 10000[..]
times.
The timings with mpeforth,swiftforth,lina and optimised-lina and gforth-fast >> are reasonably reproducible, say at most 10 percent, Mo sly better.
E.g.
time 2>&1 nice -20 gforth-fast ./sieve10k.frt
give 3.3 seconds on my AMD 64 bit 4Ghz, all the time.
However
time 2>&1 nice -20 gforth ./sieve10k.frt
gives 6.5 seconds and then the second time e.g. 4.2 seconds.
What makes gforth 0.7.3 behave differently?
I don't know about Gforth, but I have had problems with power saving
schemes on Windows.
There is of course also a cache effect if there is not enough memory.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 307 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 67:26:14 |
Calls: | 6,915 |
Files: | 12,379 |
Messages: | 5,431,811 |