George Marsaglia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
0l7b8.42092$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:0l7b8.42092$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> (3-year old) Timings, in nanoseconds, using Microsoft Visual C++
> and gcc under DOS on a 400MHz PC. Comparisons are with
> methods by Leva and by Ahrens-Dieter, both said to be fast,
> using the same the same uniform RNG.
>
> MS gcc
> Leva 307 384
> Ahrens-Dieter 161 193
> RNOR 55 65 (Ziggurat)
> REXP 77 40 (Ziggurat)
>
>
> The Monty Python method is not quite as fast as as the Ziggurat.
Thanks for the information. Could you give a rough idea about the relativities?
roughly 5% slower? 10%? 30%?
I realise it's machine-dependent, but I'm only after a rough picture.
> Some may think that Alan Miller's somewhat vague reference to
> a source for the ziggurat article suggests disdain.
I didn't get that impression.
> (I don't have a web page, so the above can be considered
> my way to play Ozymandius.)
I wish you did!
Glen
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
