On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 at 20:37, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote:
> > > > On 31 Aug 2019, at 13:27, Richard Kenneth Eng <horrido.hobb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/vw-pharo.html > > > > Is VisualWorks really faster than Pharo? Why??? > > The Pharo code is single threaded, single core, while the VW code uses > something called MatriX.VirtualMachines to create workers that run on > multiple cores. > > Presumably that makes a huge difference. > > Also, such parallelism is easy for benchmarks that can be split in > independent tasks, real world code is a completely different story. > > Basically, this is not the same code that is being compared. > Thanks Sven for this insight. It wold not have occurred to me. Looking at the results with new eyes, I notice its apparent in the sum activity of the four processors - averaging around 103% (including non-Pharo tasks) for Pharo testing and much more for VisualWorks. Normalizing CPU usage I get these comparative results (smaller is faster VW). 0.86 fasta 0.93 binary-trees 1.02 fannkuch-redux 1.02 reverse-complement 1.08 pidigits 1.09 spectral-norm 1.44 n-body 1.49 k-nucleotide So VW is 20% faster on some, 40% slower on others and most are pretty close. Although such a Matrix feature would be advantageous for some domains - just need someone to invent similar for Pharo. cheers -ben
