Print Page - Benchmarking newLISP

Title: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: cormullion on September 16, 2010, 10:16:30 AM

Just thought I'd pull these out of the forums and sort them, for fun.

Here are the results of running qa-bench from the source distribution on various pieces of kit:

Code Select Expand
$ newlisp ./newlisp-.../qa-specific-tests/qa-bench

New series: newLISP version 10.6.x

Code Select Expand
0.79 ; MacPro "recycle bin"; 2.3GHz Intel Core i5, OS X 10.9, newLISP v10.6.0-64-bit - kanen 
0.90 ; 2.7GHz Intel Core i5 iMac, OS X 10.9, newLISP v10.6.2-64-bit - cormullion
1.53 ; 2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, OS X 10.9, newLISP v10.6.2-64-bit - cormullion
9.29 ; 1.5GHz A9 (ARM) dual core Android, newLISP v10.6.0-64-bit — ralph ronnquist

Old series: newLISP versions up to 10.?

Code Select Expand
0.33 ; 2.7GHz Intel Core i5 iMac, 64 bit newLISP 10.3.2 - cormullion
0.45 ; 2.4GHz Intel Core i5 MacBook Pro, 64 bit newLISP  - itistoday
0.5  ; 2.2Ghz AMD Phenom(tm) 9550 Quad-Core Processor 64-bit on Linux IPv4 - pjot
0.55 ; Windows XP at AMD Phenom II X2 545, 3 GHz - Cyril 
0.6  ; 2 x 3.2 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon - joe 
0.63 ; FreeBSD at NFSHOST poss. 2.8 GHZ CPU - lutz
0.7  ; FreeBSD at NFSHOST probably the same on a bad day - cormullion
0.71 ; Mac OS X 2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 64-bit version of newLISP - cormullion
0.75 ; MacBook Pro 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo running 32-bit newLISP - hilti
0.8  ; AMD 64 3200+ - newdep
0.89 ; zLinux (for the IBM mainframe) - jopython 
0.9  ; Mac OS X 2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 32-bit newLISP- cormullion
1.00 ; Mac OS X 1.83 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo - Lutz
1.1 ; Windows Vista 64 at Intel Pentium D 940, 3.2 Ghz. - kazimir
1.36 ; Pentium 4, 2Ghz running Ubuntu 9.04 - robert gorenc
2.24 ; Sun Sparc 1350MHZ processor - jopython
3.25 ; Windows XP at Intel Pentium III, 800 MHz - Cyril
3.40 ; Nokia N900 at 950 MHz - hilti's "numbercruncher"
5.15 ; Nokia N900 at 700 MHz
5.37 ; Raspberry Pi 900 mHz (overclocked with the raspi-config tool) - Hilti
5.44 ; Mac OS X 1GHz PowerPC G4 (eMac) - cormullion
6.72 ; Raspberry Pi 700 mHz  256 MB RAM - Hilti
9.52 ; Sun Sparc Ultra-2 - lutz
13.7 ; Nokia N810 armv61 - newdep
30.64 ; Pentium 90, running DamnSmallLinux - robert gorenc
50.0 ; Intel Pentium 120 - P54CQS - 120MHz - xytroxon

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: xytroxon on September 17, 2010, 12:11:12 AM

I upgraded over the summer...

2.1GHz AMD Athlon II Dual-Core P320

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22http://blastr.com/assets_c/2009/12/Star_Trek_Stewart_Picard-thumb-450x300-30392.jpg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22http://blastr.com/assets_c/2009/12/Star%20...%20-30392.jpg%22%3Ehttp://blastr.com/assets_c/2009/12/Star_Trek_Stewart_Picard-thumb-450x300-30392.jpg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Number One... Engage...

-- xytroxon ;)

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: hilti on September 20, 2010, 09:02:36 AM

What kind of benchmark was run? I'd like to contribute my numbers just for fun and doing some tests on my "numbercruncher" (a Nokia N900) ;-)

Cheers

Hilti

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: cormullion on September 20, 2010, 09:40:18 AM

This is running qa-bench from the source distribution:

$ newlisp ./newlisp-10.2.8/qa-specific-tests/qa-bench

Lutz - I found that my new 64 bit version of newLISP was consistently faster - 0.7 rather than 0.9. Cool!

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: Cyril on September 23, 2010, 06:42:18 AM

~~Quote from: "xytroxon"~~I upgraded over the summer...

I am in upgrade just now! This is probably the very last message I write from the my old box. So...

Code Select Expand 3.25 ; Windows XP at Intel Pentium III, 800 MHz - Cyril

And the result from the my new box will be in a few hours! ;-)

Update:

Code Select Expand 0.55 ; Windows XP at AMD Phenom II X2 545, 3 GHz - Cyril

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: cormullion on September 23, 2010, 09:45:19 AM

If only all upgrades showed so much improvement... :)

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: itistoday on September 23, 2010, 11:48:32 AM

Nice, 64-bit is definitely a little bit faster:

Code Select Expand $ ./newlisp qa-specific-tests/qa-bench Benchmarking all non I/O primitives 1016.4 ms >>>>> Performance ratio: 0.45 (1.0 on Mac OS X, 1.83 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo)

2.4GHz Intel Core i5 MacBook Pro here. :-)

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: Kazimir Majorinc on September 23, 2010, 02:28:55 PM

1.1, Windows Vista 64 at Intel Pentium D 940, 3.2 Ghz.

I just concluded that I do not need new hardware for next few years.

qa-bench could be integrated in Newlisp core as function, people like benchmarks.

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: Robert Gorenc on September 24, 2010, 12:13:08 PM

30.64 on Pentium 90, running DamnSmallLinux (old gran'pa is still running :-) )

and

1.36 Pentium 4, 2Ghz running Ubuntu 9.04

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: hilti on September 25, 2010, 12:27:27 AM

Hmm...I'm always getting this message when running the qa-bench script.

Code Select Expand newlisp ./newlisp-10.2.8/qa-specific-tests/qa-bench Benchmarking all non I/O primitives 1608,4 ms ERR: value expected in function mul : .5

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: cormullion on September 25, 2010, 12:45:43 AM

Looks like a locale problem - commas for decimal points, then decimal points not recognized?

As a temporary fix, you could try inserting a (set-locale "en_US") statement near the top...

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: hilti on September 25, 2010, 05:08:25 AM

Now it works - thanks a lot.

This is my MacBook Pro 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo running 32-bit newLISP
Code Select Expand Benchmarking all non I/O primitives 1788.7 ms >>>>> Performance ratio: 0.75 (1.0 on Mac OS X, 1.83 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo)

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: hilti on September 25, 2010, 05:17:25 AM

Nokia N900 at 950 MHz - that's my "numbercruncher" ;-)
Code Select Expand 8540.2 ms >>>>> Performance ratio: 3.40

Nokia N900 at 700 MHz results in
Code Select Expand 12999.1 ms >>>>> Performance ratio: 5.15

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: cormullion on September 25, 2010, 08:59:13 AM

not bad for a phone, though!

If someone tells me how to compile newLISP for an iPod Touch, I have a jail-broken one lying around ...

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: cormullion on August 26, 2011, 05:59:17 AM

Updated :)

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: hilti on December 29, 2012, 12:19:45 AM

Here's a result for newLISP 10.4.5 on a Raspberry Pi (700 mHZ, 256 MB RAM)

Code Select Expand pi@raspberrypi /tmp/newlisp-10.4.5/qa-specific-tests $ newlisp qa-bench >>>>> Benchmarking all non I/O primitives ... may take a while ... 17001.4 ms >>>>> Performance ratio: 6.72 (1.0 on Mac OSX, 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo, newLISP v10.2.8)

Next step is to host some newLISP sites on my Raspberry Pi.

Update:

Now //http://www.rundragonfly.com is running on the Raspberry Pi. Performance feels quite good.

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: hilti on December 29, 2012, 12:31:12 AM

Here is a result at 900 mHz (overclocked with the raspi-config tool)

Code Select Expand >>>>> Benchmarking all non I/O primitives ... may take a while ... 13575.5 ms >>>>> Performance ratio: 5.37 (1.0 on Mac OSX, 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo, newLISP v10.2.8)

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: Ryon on December 29, 2012, 06:58:11 AM

~~Quote~~Forbidden

You don't have permission to access / on this server.

Apache/2.2.22 (Debian) Server at http://www.rundragonfly.com Port 80

But is this a useful purpose? :)

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: hilti on December 29, 2012, 11:51:43 AM

Corrected. I've just played around ;-)

I think newLISP and the Raspberry Pi are a wonderful couple, because

1. newLISP can be used for distributed computing tasks between several Raspberry Pi's

2. Uses less memory than other scripting languages (I think Python on a Pi is too much)

3. Is fast enough to serve simple dynamic websites (faster than PHP+MySQL on a Pi)

Has anyone a Raspberry Pi at home?

Cheers

Hilti

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: cormullion on December 30, 2012, 03:08:41 AM

Haven't got one, but I always thought it was a great idea. However I'd picked up the impression that it was really fast —people talking about HD video and things —but it's obviously not yet up to PC speed yet for general tasks. However, putting a few together might be a different story.

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: kanen on March 10, 2015, 07:17:03 PM

> total time: 1947.244

> Performance ratio: 0.79 (1.0 on MacOSX 10.9, 2.3GHz Intel Core i5, newLISP v10.6.0-64-bit)

This is on the Mac Pro 2013 Recycle Bin computer. :)

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: cormullion on March 11, 2015, 01:54:07 AM

Seems a bit slow - presumably that's due to newLISP 10.6.0 rather than OSX 10.9 or the Recycle Bin...?

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: rrq on March 11, 2015, 02:54:08 AM

This is my result trialling last week's 10.6.3 on a 1.5GHz A9 (ARM) dual core TV box (hardware "Amlogic Meson8B"):

>>>>> Benchmarking all non I/O primitives ... (may take a while)

>>>>> total time: 24184.55799999999

>>>>> Performance ratio: 9.29 (1.0 on MacOSX 10.9, 2.3GHz Intel Core i5, newLISP v10.6.0-64-bit)

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: cormullion on March 11, 2015, 09:54:12 AM

newLISP 10.6 looks to be slower than older versions — I'm only getting 0.9 seconds now on 10.6, compared with 0.4 with newLISP 10.3. I was going to investigate, but the benchmark "qa-bench" in the current distribution isn't backwards compatible with earlier versions... Which makes the top post fairly meaningless now, since they're all different version numbers. :)

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: Lutz on March 11, 2015, 10:43:28 AM

In my own benchmarks 10.6.x is definitely not slower, rather faster (< 1%) than previous versions. The benchmarks have changed over versions, and were recalibrated when changing to a new Mac mini in 2011 around 10.3.x. When recompiling older versions calibrated on an older 2007 Mac mini on a newer 2011 Mac mini, the older versions will give faster (lower ratios) because calibrated to an older model CPU.

Over the years newLISP only has gotten faster, never slower. The last, minor speedup in 10.4.7, when eliminating the strncat() C function for security reasons.

All benchmarks are done on Mac OS X, Linux and Windows XP. Linux is always the fastest clocking in at 0.93 to 0.94 compared to OS X

On OS X 10.10 Yosemete, newLISP has gotten slower and average of 1% comparing to OS X 10.9 Maverick.

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: rrq on March 11, 2015, 02:29:17 PM

cormullion, please note that my test was run on a "1.5GHz A9 (ARM) dual core Android", with performance index 9.29 relative the Mac.... and not on that type Mac.

Also, the comparison across version might be somewhat fraught, but I still think it's interesting :-)

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: cormullion on March 12, 2015, 01:21:30 AM

Yes, that mistake has been made more than once... :)

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: rrq on March 12, 2015, 01:59:25 AM

If I may add some more correction: my newlisp proclaims being:

"newLISP v.10.6.3 32-bit on Linux IPv4/6 UTF-8, options: newlisp -h"

which possibly refers to the compilation host rather than runtime host.

The run-time host itself, via "uname -a" reports being:

"Linux localhost 3.10.33 #3 SMP PREEMPT Thu Dec 25 19:03:44 CST 2014 armv7l GNU/Linux"

I guess, in short, it's "newLISP v10.6.3-32-bit".

Title: Re: Benchmarking newLISP
Post by: newdep on December 17, 2021, 06:43:01 AM

few years ltr... new hardware, same software ;-)

Code Select Expand /newlisp-10.7.5/qa-specific-tests$ ./qa-bench

254 non I/O functions performed SUCCESSFUL in 1.699 ms

Code Select Expand >>>>> Benchmarking all non I/O primitives ... (may take a while) >>>>> total time: 956.0399999999998 >>>>> Performance ratio: 0.41 (1.0 on macOS 10.12, MacBook (Retina, 12-inch, Early 2016), newLISP v10.7.3-64-bit)

CPU0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-9700F CPU @ 3.00GHz

newLISP Fan Club

Forum => newLISP and the O.S. => Topic started by: cormullion on September 16, 2010, 10:16:30 AM