Nick Craig-Wood <nick <at> craig-wood.com> writes: > > Peter Hansen <peter <at> engcorp.com> wrote: > > For comparison, I do get a decent speedup. Machine is an > > AMD Athlon XP 2500+ (1.82GHz) running Win XP Pro SP2. > > > > Python 2.3.4: 36393 pystones. > > Python 2.4: 39400 pystones. > > > > ...about an 8% speedup. > > On my 2.6 GHz P4 running debian testing I got the following results :- > > $ for p in 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4; do echo $p; python$p pystone.py 1000000 ; done > > 2.1 > Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 40.67 > This machine benchmarks at 24588.1 pystones/second > 2.2 > Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 39.64 > This machine benchmarks at 25227 pystones/second > 2.3 > Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 32.49 > This machine benchmarks at 30778.7 pystones/second > 2.4 > Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 29.88 > This machine benchmarks at 33467.2 pystones/second > > Showing that 2.4 is the fastest so far! (And is also a good advert > for AMD >
I got this list on a single processor P4 1.6 Ghz: 2.1 Pystone(1.1) time for 100000 passes = 6.74 This machine benchmarks at 14836.8 pystones/second 2.2 Pystone(1.1) time for 100000 passes = 6.36 This machine benchmarks at 15723.3 pystones/second 2.3 Pystone(1.1) time for 100000 passes = 4.92 This machine benchmarks at 20325.2 pystones/second 2.4 Pystone(1.1) time for 100000 passes = 4.51 This machine benchmarks at 22172.9 pystones/second Which shows the expected speedup. On a dual Xeon 3.0 Ghz: 2.2 Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 37.45 This machine benchmarks at 26702.3 pystones/second 2.3 Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 25.28 This machine benchmarks at 39557 pystones/second 2.4 Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 25.94 This machine benchmarks at 38550.5 pystones/second Which shows a decrease in performance. Could this have anything to do with the fact that is is a dual processor box? Lucas -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
