Re: v8 first impressions
"David Griswold" <[email protected]> Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:30:31 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.strongtalk |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
------=_Part_168_21000192.1222119031710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Yes, it's really a shame that original development on the system stopped just as the new back-end was starting to run programs about the size of Richards. It can do quite a bit more optimization than the current Strongtalk back-end, although it still isn't a real optimizing compiler by any means. But there is a lot of low-hanging fruit that it can take advantage of. Unfortunately, as I recall it is still far from finished, and it would be a serious project for a real compiler guy to get it done. But kudos for getting any numbers out of it at all! Maybe at some point someone will do something with it.-Dave On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:15 PM, talksmall <[email protected]>wrote: > > Just a slight update to my earlier post about the relative performance > of various VMs. > > With the new back-end in place the performance of the Strongtalk VM > improves substantially. I didn't include it in my previous test, > because I honestly didn't think it was stable enough to complete a > run. Still, I gave it a try and it surprised me. > > A 100 run average time with the new back-end produces an average time > of 4.36ms. That's about 3 times as fast as the VW and V8 figures. > > Running with the new back-end is pretty unstable (I had to try a > couple of times to get a complete run and paste the results in a > spreadsheet without the VM crashing with an access violation), but it > does offer the prospect of substantial performance improvements. > > Regards, Steve > > On Sep 8, 1:47 am, talksmall <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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: 7.335ms > > VW: 13.013ms > > V8: 13.648ms > > GNUSmalltalk: 91.090ms > > Squeak: 102.600ms > > > > 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 [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strongtalk-general?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- ------=_Part_168_21000192.1222119031710 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 <div dir="ltr">Yes, it's really a shame that original development on the system stopped just as the new back-end was starting to run programs about the size of Richards. It can do quite a bit more optimization than the current Strongtalk back-end, although it still isn't a real optimizing compiler by any means. But there is a lot of low-hanging fruit that it can take advantage of.<div> <br></div><div>Unfortunately, as I recall it is still far from finished, and it would be a serious project for a real compiler guy to get it done. But kudos for getting any numbers out of it at all! Maybe at some point someone will do something with it.<div> -Dave<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:15 PM, talksmall <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <br> Just a slight update to my earlier post about the relative performance<br> of various VMs.<br> <br> With the new back-end in place the performance of the Strongtalk VM<br> improves substantially. I didn't include it in my previous test,<br> because I honestly didn't think it was stable enough to complete a<br> run. Still, I gave it a try and it surprised me.<br> <br> A 100 run average time with the new back-end produces an average time<br> of 4.36ms. That's about 3 times as fast as the VW and V8 figures.<br> <br> Running with the new back-end is pretty unstable (I had to try a<br> couple of times to get a complete run and paste the results in a<br> spreadsheet without the VM crashing with an access violation), but it<br> does offer the prospect of substantial performance improvements.<br> <br> Regards, Steve<br> <div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br> On Sep 8, 1:47 am, talksmall <<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> > I ran a comparison of the Richards benchmark for which both Javascript<br> > and Smalltalk versions are available.<br> ><br> > The version released with V8 isn't exactly comparable to the standard<br> > version since it uses a count of 1000 rather than 10000. With that<br> > tweaked to match the standard count I ran a comparison of V8 against a<br> > selection of Smalltalk VMs - VisualWorks NC, Squeak, GNU Smalltalk and<br> > Strongtalk.<br> ><br> > I customised the Smalltalk tests to follow the same methodology as the<br> > V8 benchmarks - iterating the test for a second and then dividing by<br> > the number of iterations.<br> ><br> > The results are interesting<br> ><br> > Strongtalk: 7.335ms<br> > VW: 13.013ms<br> > V8: 13.648ms<br> > GNUSmalltalk: 91.090ms<br> > Squeak: 102.600ms<br> ><br> > All of the tests were run on a Vista 64 Quad core machine at 2.66 GHz,<br> > though in each case I was running a 32 bit VM (since not all the VMs<br> > have 64 bit builds).<br> ><br> > Regards, Steve<br> <br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><br> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~<br> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Strongtalk-general" group. <br> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] <br> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] <br> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strongtalk-general?hl=en <br> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---<br> <br> ------=_Part_168_21000192.1222119031710--