Benchmarking newLISP

[cormullion]

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


[xytroxon]

I upgraded over the summer...



2.1GHz AMD Athlon II Dual-Core P320



http://blastr.com/assets_c/2009/12/Star_Trek_Stewart_Picard-thumb-450x300-30392.jpg">



Number One... Engage...



-- xytroxon ;)

[hilti]

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

[cormullion]

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!

[Cyril]

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

[cormullion]

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

[itistoday]

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. :-)

[Kazimir Majorinc]

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.

[Robert Gorenc]

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

and

1.36 Pentium 4, 2Ghz running Ubuntu 9.04

[hilti]

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


[cormullion]

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...

[hilti]

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)


[hilti]

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


[cormullion]

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 ...

[cormullion]

Updated :)