On 30/07/2012 23:33, Jeffrey Lee wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Ian Jeffray wrote: > >> Might be interesting to check if there's any noticeable (timeable) >> performance difference between the gcc and vs2010 builds... I'd rather >> hope the latter would be ahead. > > I'm not entirely sure if !SICK can be trusted (the CPU speed it reports > seems to keep switching between ~108MHz and ~125MHz), but it looks like > both VS 2010 and GCC 4.5.3 are evenly matched when it comes to CPU > emulation. GCC seems to win when it comes to memory emulation, by quite > a wide margin. Results attached (running Win XP on a Q9450 @ 2.66GHz)
Wow! That's a difference worth taking notice of. Very interesting! The figures you get out of !SICK are really quite similar to mine, on a 2 year old Win7x64 i7-920@2.66GHz, which is handy. For 'amusement' I tried enabling a lot of the 'silly' and 'unsafe' optimisations in VS2010... and performance actually DROPPED! Clearly it seems gcc is doing something better than VS2010, or the arcem code is more suited to gcc at least. Very interesting indeed. [And annoying as I was hoping VS2010 would be fastest!] Thanks for testing :) I. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ -- arcem-devel mailing list arcem-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/arcem-devel
