I run squeak on a 1.3 millon bytecodes/sec and in MVC it's usable.

Not fast, usable.

cheers

bruce
 
Tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:51:39 -0700
> From: Tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org>
> Subject: Re: Dorado bytecodes per second
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> reply-to: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> content-length: 2464
> 
> Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel at merlintec.com> wrote:
> 
> > By running the benchmarks for the "green book" and doing a lot of rough
> > extrapolations, my guess is that the Dorado would get between 200K and
> > 400K bytecodes/sec.
> That is pretty much what I remember as the claim for Dorados.
> 
> > That is better than what I got running Squeak 1.16
> > on a 33MHz 486 machine which was some 13 years newer, but far below what
> > I expected. My impression was that the old 20MHz ECL computer was able
> > to reach a peak of one bytecode per clock
> > which would indicate a number around three or four times better.
> I was under the impression that the Dorado was a 70nS cycle machine, ie 14MHz
> or so. And many bytecodes would take more than one cycle of course.
> 
> > 
> > After looking at a bunch of numbers my conclusion is that Squeak is
> > usable on machines capable of at least 20M bps. If my guess above is
> > corrent, that would be around 60 Dorados.
> My Iyonix does about 35mbc/s on the dumb-bytecodes test and about 20 Dorado in
> the greenbook tests - with a tiny cache (don't imagine Dorado had much of one
> either!) the longer prims etc suffer relative to a monster watt-sucker like a
> pentium.
> 
> My first ARM system was 4 mips (no cache at all, not even instruction pre-
> fetch) with 4Mb of slow ram. It scored 27% Dorado but was thoroughly usable as
> a UI. It could scan and layout nice formatted text in pretty fonts faster than
> the contemporaneous PCs running Aldus (for example) could do. The ARM 3 upgrade
> gave 10mips and 127% on the same motherboard/ram. The Iyonix is 600MHz with
> larger caches and fast memory but only scores 15 times faster, an indication of
> how much there is still to get out of a simple interpreter.
> 
> > If both estimates are true,
> > then I wonder if our definition of "acceptable" has changed or if Squeak
> > has become less efficient. Certainly Morphic is always being blamed for
> > slowing everything down, so the latter is probably the case.
> I suspect it is largely the rather poor UI responsiveness that is the problem.
> In MVC on my  machine the UI flies, menus are instant, browser bang open etc.
> In morphic every
> thing
> is
> 
> 
> really
> 
> 
> slowwwwwwwwww
> 
> Some of it is simply that morphic is sloshing large bitmaps around with high
> colour depths. Some of it is probably some dumb algorthmic error that nobody
> has spotted yet.
> 
> tim
> --
> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> Useful random insult:- Useful as a hip pocket on a T-shirt.