How are you running the benchmarks? These types of micro-benchmarks in Java are really difficult to get right.
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 1:25:15 PM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > Ok, the Java mandel benchmark code cheats by manually inlining and > strength reducing all the operations on complex numbers. This benchmark > needs to use a complex number type like everyone else. > > > On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Stefan Karpinski > <ste...@karpinski.org<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Ok, this may be more interesting than I thought, but not in a good way >> for Java. Here are some preliminary results after getting this to run on >> our benchmark machine: >> >> benchmarkC Javarelative 1fib 0.070812.792345 39.434331309137132parse_int >> 0.231028 4.10451617.766314039856642 3 mandel0.416994 0.272333 >> 0.6530861355319262 4 quicksort0.600815 1.8509083.080662100646622 5 pi_sum >> 55.112839 55.5331281.0076259725977825 6 rand_mat_stat16.684055 63.864488 >> 3.827875657326711 7 rand_mat_mul106.070995 614.2645555.791069981006589 >> 8printfd >> 27.725935 145.0293545.230819231163891 >> >> Those are some rough numbers for Java. It's getting clobbered by C, >> Fortran, Julia, Go, JavaScript and sometimes even Python. Brutal. We >> definitely need some Java pros to take a look at the code and make sure >> it's a fair comparison. The mandel result is also suspicious because it >> doesn't seem reasonable that Java can be beating C and Fortran by that much. >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Stefan Karpinski >> <ste...@karpinski.org<javascript:> >> > wrote: >> >>> I merged the Java benchmarks, but couldn't get them to run: >>> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/6317. If anyone is a Java pro >>> and wants to take a crack at this, that would be most appreciated. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Isaiah Norton >>> <isaiah...@gmail.com<javascript:> >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> No. http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/performance-tips/ >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Freddy Chua >>>> <fred...@gmail.com<javascript:> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> I did some simple benchmark on for loop >>>>> >>>>> a=0 >>>>> for i=1:1000000000 >>>>> a+=1 >>>>> end >>>>> >>>>> The C equivalent runs way faster... does that mean julia is slow on >>>>> loops ? >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, March 30, 2014 10:06:20 PM UTC+8, Isaiah wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/tree/master/test/perf >>>>>> >>>>>> > I also wonder why no tests were done with Java.. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is an open PR for Java, which you could check out and try: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/5260 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Freddy Chua <fred...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wonder where can I download the source code of these benchmarks, I >>>>>>> want to try it on my own... I also wonder why no tests were done with >>>>>>> Java.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fortran JuliaPythonR MatlabOctaveMathe-matica JavaScriptGo gcc 4.8.1 >>>>>>> 0.22.7.3 3.0.2R2012a 3.6.48.0V8 3.7.12.22 go1 fib0.260.9130.37 >>>>>>> 411.361992.003211.81 64.462.181.03parse_int 5.031.6013.9559.401463.16 >>>>>>> 7109.8529.542.43 4.79quicksort1.111.14 31.98524.29101.841132.0435.74 >>>>>>> 3.511.25mandel 0.860.8514.19106.97 64.58316.956.073.49 2.36pi_sum >>>>>>> 0.801.00 16.3315.421.29237.41 1.320.841.41rand_mat_stat 0.641.66 >>>>>>> 13.5210.84 6.6114.984.523.28 8.12rand_mat_mul0.961.01 3.413.981.10 >>>>>>> 3.41 1.1614.608.51 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
