On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 01:43:44PM +0200, Martin Helm wrote:
> Am Samstag, 4. September 2010, 13:22:36 schrieb Jaroslav Hajek:
>
> > Hmm, the Octave-related information is sadly outdated :( Probably
> > still based on Octave 3.0.x. I believe 3.2.x would also perform better
> > in the benchmarks.
> >
> In addition I have some severe doubts about the reliability of the tests, I
> look through the table and found for a 2000x2000 matrix multiply
> octave 18.664
> R 0.070
It's not just Octave, R beats every other product by a factor of at
least 100.
> Comparing the performance of a matrix multiply in R and octave does not give
> me any hint that R outperforms (even the old 3.0 version of octave) by a
> factor 266 (?!?) but gives comparable speed.
> Looks like the testers did not recognize that a*b is not the same in octave
> and R but that in R one has to write %*% for matrix multiplication and they
> compare component wise multiplication in R with full matrix multiplication in
> octave.
> Not very promising from my point of view.
I have the same feeling. LU decomposition is faster by a factor of at
least 500(!) in R than in any other product.
Sorry, I don't believe this.
Thomas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:
Show off your parallel programming skills.
Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
