On my Mac Book Pro running Windows XP via Parallels the figures I get are:
For C# SciGMark 1.0 - C# - specialized FFT (1024): 127.693325911912 SOR (100x100): 451.688663887376 Monte Carlo : 53.8252351904638 Sparse matmult (N=1000, nz=5000): 287.33058461682 LU (100x100): 281.689806463528 PolyMult (N=40): 129.801981762775 Composite Score: 222.004932972147 Platform Information CLR Version: 2.0.50727.1433 Working Set: 17170432 For java -server: SciGMark 1.0 - Java - specialized FFT (1024): 296.13593880108886 SOR (100x100): 895.0093438244637 Monte Carlo : 237.23858121300037 Sparse matmult (N=10, nz=50): 467.9837360457056 LU (100x100): 1304.666388568605 PolyMult (N=40): 563.4980943142291 Composite Score: 627.4220137945155 java.vendor: Sun Microsystems Inc. java.version: 1.6.0_06 os.arch: x86 os.name: Windows XP os.version: 5.1 Which makes the Java version about 3 times quicker. I used the code given for the paper I previously referenced, since this code uses exactly the same algorithms and avoids system calls. It is quite possible that I did not give the C# compiler the right options; I simply ran the code from Visual Studio Express, I am far from a C# expert. PS We are probably both is breach of the .NET user agreement; see section 8, it points considerable restrictions on running benchmarks. On Apr 22, 7:44 pm, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 22 April 2008 08:39:03 hlovatt wrote: > > > @John, > > > Your benchmarking does not seem consistent with this paper: > > >http://www.orcca.on.ca/~ldragan/synasc2005/2005-synasc-scigmark-final... > > > They show Java faster than C# on most of the benchmarks in the SciMark > > suite. But not the Monte Carlo simulation to calculate Pi, which is > > presumably the benchmark you are talking about (are you using just > > this benchmark or all of the SciMark benchmarks?). > > I quoted the combined figures for all benchmarks. The individual figures are: > > Java: > FFT 326 > Jacobi 499 > Monte C 71.8 > Sparse 446 > LU 579 > > C# .NET: > FFT 325 > Jacobi 505 > Monte C 96.5 > Sparse 415 > LU 629 > > As you can see, the Monte Carlo benchmark is several times faster (was 27.0) > without the unnecessary lock and the performance is basically identical > between Java and C#. > > > Note the authors of > > this paper used an identical, non-synchronised random number generator > > for all languages, therefore your comments about syncronization are > > addressed by their approach. > > They benchmarked an extremely old version of .NET that predated generics. > > -- > Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy > Ltd.http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
