2011/3/12 Poul-Henning Kamp :
> In message <4d7b44af.7040...@freebsd.org>, Martin Matuska writes:
>
>
> Thanks a lot for doing this properly.
>
>>What significance level should I take?
>
> I think I set ministat(1) to use 95 % confidence level by default
> and that is in general a pretty safe bet (
In message <4d7b44af.7040...@freebsd.org>, Martin Matuska writes:
Thanks a lot for doing this properly.
>What significance level should I take?
I think I set ministat(1) to use 95 % confidence level by default
and that is in general a pretty safe bet (1 in 20 chance)
>I hope this approach is b
2011/3/12 Martin Matuska
> Hi Poul-Henning,
>
> I have redone the test for majority of the processors, this time taking
> 5 samples of each whole testrun, calculating the average, standard
> deviation, relative standard deviation, standard error and relative
> standard error.
>
> The relative sta
2011/3/12 Martin Matuska
> Hi Poul-Henning,
>
> I have redone the test for majority of the processors, this time taking
> 5 samples of each whole testrun, calculating the average, standard
> deviation, relative standard deviation, standard error and relative
> standard error.
>
> The relative sta
Hi Poul-Henning,
I have redone the test for majority of the processors, this time taking
5 samples of each whole testrun, calculating the average, standard
deviation, relative standard deviation, standard error and relative
standard error.
The relative standard error is below 0.25% for ~91%, betw
In message <4d7a42cc.8020...@freebsd.org>, Martin Matuska writes:
>But what I can say, e.g. for the Intel Atom processor, if there are
>performance gains in all but one test (that falls 2% behind), generic
>perl code (the routines benchmarked) on this processor is very likely to
>run faster with t
I don't take this personally and fully understand your point.
But even if all conditions you described are met, I am still not able to
say "this is better" as I am not doing a microbenchmark. The +x% score
is just an average of all test scores weightened by factor 1 - this does
not reflect any rea
Quoting Martin Matuska (from Thu, 10 Mar 2011
22:33:37 +0100):
Hi everyone,
we have performed a benchmark of the perl binary compiled with base gcc,
ports gcc and ports clang using the perlbench benchmark suite.
Our benchmark was performed solely on amd64 with 10 different processors
and we
In message <4d7943b1.1030...@freebsd.org>, Martin Matuska writes:
>More information, detailed test results and test configuration are at
>our blog:
>http://blog.vx.sk/archives/25-FreeBSD-Compiler-Benchmark-gcc-base-vs-gcc-ports-vs-clang.html
Please don't take this personally Martin, but you have
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:33:37PM +0100, Martin Matuska wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> we have performed a benchmark of the perl binary compiled with base gcc,
> ports gcc and ports clang using the perlbench benchmark suite.
> Our benchmark was performed solely on amd64 with 10 different processors
>
FWIW ..
I think the phoronix benchmarks got similar results.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_llvm_clang&num=1
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm_gcc_atom&num=1
IMHO, 10% is not a huge performance difference though.
Pedro.
Hi everyone,
we have performed a benchmark of the perl binary compiled with base gcc,
ports gcc and ports clang using the perlbench benchmark suite.
Our benchmark was performed solely on amd64 with 10 different processors
and we have tried different -march= flags to compare binary performance
of t
12 matches
Mail list logo
