Already more than 2x improvement between 3.2-4 and 3.6g-3 VMs

Ned Konz ned at bike-nomad.com
Mon Mar 29 16:25:58 UTC 2004


On Sunday 28 March 2004 8:16 pm, Tim Rowledge wrote:
> I wonder how far we are? I wouldn't be surprised if we're better than
> 2x anyway simply from general improvements in the code.

As you may recall from your visit to my house, I've seen a 2:1 spread over 
various *3.6* VMs on my system, depending on optimization flags and GCC 
versions.

> Wish my recent 
> prim/timer changes had done as much good for x86 as they did for RISC
> OS!
>
> I'd suggest doing benchmarking using the benchmark package on SM; it
> includes the old GreenBook benchmarks, slopstones and smopstone and
> ought to give a good spread of data. If someone actually has a 3.2vm
> that can run an image that can load the benchmark code we could find
> out the answer. I'd be interested, quite aside from money.

On a Pentium Pro system running Linux (2.4GHz, 800MHz memory bus), and on a 
3.2-4 image, I get:

3.2-4 VM, Linux
0 tinyBenchmarks '126357354 bytecodes/sec; 3343528 sends/sec'
Performance Rating		5141.30810938756

3.6g-3 VM, Linux
0 tinyBenchmarks '207792207 bytecodes/sec; 6490934 sends/sec'
Performance Rating		12107.95708688026

Details are attached.

-- 
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: performanceComparison.zip
Type: application/x-zip
Size: 12452 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20040329/9c51d2e7/performanceComparison.bin


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list