Re: v8 first impressions
talksmall <[email protected]> Mon, 8 Sep 2008 02:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.strongtalk |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <b9b02cf4-f714-4421-a073-d763a8de465c@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> |
Hi Dave, Yes, I did. I emulated the "iterate for a second" loop from the V8 test and put it into a method. I then ran the test several times, with only a marginal improvement (< 1ms). I took the same approach for all of the Smalltalk tests, though it shouldn't make any difference to the others since they don't implement adaptive optimization. Regards, Steve On Sep 8, 9:13=A0am, "David Griswold" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve, > That's interesting. =A0On Strongtalk did you run the test multiple times = with > the top level loop in a method (not a doit) to avoid the on-stack > replacement problem? =A0 If not, Strongtalk might be even faster than tha= t, > since in general it is more than twice as fast as VisualWorks (or at leas= t > used to be). =A0But at least it confirms my intuition that V8 would be on= the > same order of performance as VW. > -Dave > > On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:47 PM, talksmall <[email protected]>wr= ote: > > > > > I ran a comparison of the Richards benchmark for which both Javascript > > and Smalltalk versions are available. > > > The version released with V8 isn't exactly comparable to the standard > > version since it uses a count of 1000 rather than 10000. With that > > tweaked to match the standard count I ran a comparison of V8 against a > > selection of Smalltalk VMs - VisualWorks NC, Squeak, GNU Smalltalk and > > Strongtalk. > > > I customised the Smalltalk tests to follow the same methodology as the > > V8 benchmarks - iterating the test for a second and then dividing by > > the number of iterations. > > > The results are interesting > > > Strongtalk: =A0 =A07.335ms > > VW: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 13.013ms > > V8: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 13.648ms > > GNUSmalltalk: 91.090ms > > Squeak: =A0 =A0 =A0102.600ms > > > All of the tests were run on a Vista 64 Quad core machine at 2.66 GHz, > > though in each case I was running a 32 bit VM (since not all the VMs > > have 64 bit builds). > > > Regards, Steve --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Strongtalk-general" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to strongtalk-general+unsubscrib= [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strong= talk-general?hl=3Den -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---