Re: Larkin, Power BASIC cannot be THAT good:
- From: Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 17:35:03 GMT
On a sunny day (Fri, 15 May 2009 18:19:18 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<CshPl.60236$i24.8001@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 15 May 2009 09:04:43 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Tim
Williams <tmoranwms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<a98d6394-e9bf-4e1d-9af6-7917f68a5bf6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On May 15, 9:34 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The run time in C is 13 seconds here on a 1GHz processor.
Can you specify your 'old HP computer' ?
I can win maybe 1 second by writing the code a bit different.
And a 3GHz would do it in 12 / 4 = 4 seconds...
A bigger cache would help a bit perhaps.
The only way I can get it to run that slow on my 3GHz old P4 HT chip is
with full debugging enabled and the optimiser completely disabled in MS
C++ Win32 console environment. I would hope for nearly an order of
magnitude faster using SSE.
Cool, I just tried with gcc -O4 and it runs in .56 the time :-)
NB You really should initialise the arrays first.
That will not affect timing of the loop.
.
- References:
- Larkin, Power BASIC cannot be THAT good:
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Re: Larkin, Power BASIC cannot be THAT good:
- From: Tim Williams
- Re: Larkin, Power BASIC cannot be THAT good:
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Re: Larkin, Power BASIC cannot be THAT good:
- From: Martin Brown
- Larkin, Power BASIC cannot be THAT good:
- Prev by Date: Re: Larkin, Power BASIC cannot be THAT good:
- Next by Date: Re: Soldering little components
- Previous by thread: Re: Larkin, Power BASIC cannot be THAT good:
- Next by thread: Re: Larkin, Power BASIC cannot be THAT good:
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
