• Thomas Kuehne (33/33) Nov 03 2004 Hi everybody,
• Dave (4/37) Nov 03 2004 What were the build flags for each?
• Thomas Kuehne (4/47) Nov 03 2004 dmd: -O
• Dave (44/51) Nov 03 2004 Thanks - and below is what I got.
• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (12/28) Nov 05 2004 Here are the results from the SciMark2, on Mac OS X 10.3:
• Thomas Kuehne (3/5) Nov 05 2004 Thanks, fixed.

Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:

Hi everybody,

I'm currently adding various benchmarks to DStress.
SciMark2 has some interesting results:

(best of 10, Mflops)

= = = dmd 0.105 (D) = = =
Composite:      100.07
FFT:            39.50
SOR:            223.03
M.Carlo:        30.37
matmult:        85.56 
LU:             121.90

= = = gdc 0.8 (D) = = =
Composite:      132.54
FFT:            138.87
SOR:            225.11
M.Carlo:        31.66
matmult:        131.07
LU:             135.99

= = = gcc 3.4.2 (C) = = =
Composite:      134.63
FFT:            144.39 
SOR:            227.24
M.Carlo:        39.48
matmult:        133.75
LU:             128.32

dmd's FFT results are constantly that slow. I haven't investigated if
gdc/gcc does some hyper optimization, uses a lower number of significant
bits or if the D-port is botched.

SciMark2 (C & Java)
http://math.nist.gov/scimark

SciMark2 (dirty D port)
svn://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/benchmark/scimark/

Thomas

Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:

What were the build flags for each?

Thanks,
- Dave

In article <cmbbtt$7t8$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Thomas Kuehne says...
Hi everybody,

I'm currently adding various benchmarks to DStress.
SciMark2 has some interesting results:

(best of 10, Mflops)

= = = dmd 0.105 (D) = = =
Composite:Â Â Â Â Â Â 100.07
FFT:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 39.50
SOR:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 223.03
M.Carlo:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 30.37
matmult:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 85.56 
LU:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 121.90

= = = gdc 0.8 (D) = = =
Composite:Â Â Â Â Â Â 132.54
FFT:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 138.87
SOR:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 225.11
M.Carlo:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 31.66
matmult:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 131.07
LU:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 135.99

= = = gcc 3.4.2 (C) = = =
Composite:Â Â Â Â Â Â 134.63
FFT:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 144.39 
SOR:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 227.24
M.Carlo:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 39.48
matmult:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 133.75
LU:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 128.32

dmd's FFT results are constantly that slow. I haven't investigated if
gdc/gcc does some hyper optimization, uses a lower number of significant
bits or if the D-port is botched.

SciMark2 (C & Java)
http://math.nist.gov/scimark

SciMark2 (dirty D port)
svn://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/benchmark/scimark/

Thomas

Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:

Dave schrieb am Mittwoch, 3. November 2004 21:38:
 
 What were the build flags for each?
 

dmd: -O 
gdc: -O2 -frename-registers -fomit-frame-pointer -fweb
gcc: -O3

I'm currently adding various benchmarks to DStress.
SciMark2 has some interesting results:

(best of 10, Mflops)

= = = dmd 0.105 (D) = = =
Composite:      100.07
FFT:            39.50
SOR:            223.03
M.Carlo:        30.37
matmult:        85.56
LU:             121.90

= = = gdc 0.8 (D) = = =
Composite:      132.54
FFT:            138.87
SOR:            225.11
M.Carlo:        31.66
matmult:        131.07
LU:             135.99

= = = gcc 3.4.2 (C) = = =
Composite:      134.63
FFT:            144.39
SOR:            227.24
M.Carlo:        39.48
matmult:        133.75
LU:             128.32

dmd's FFT results are constantly that slow. I haven't investigated if
gdc/gcc does some hyper optimization, uses a lower number of significant
bits or if the D-port is botched.

SciMark2 (C & Java)
http://math.nist.gov/scimark

SciMark2 (dirty D port)
svn://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/benchmark/scimark/

Thomas

Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <cmbgq5$ka5$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Thomas Kuehne says...
Dave schrieb am Mittwoch, 3. November 2004 21:38:
 
 What were the build flags for each?
 

dmd: -O 
gdc: -O2 -frename-registers -fomit-frame-pointer -fweb
gcc: -O3

Thanks - and below is what I got.

--- DMD v0.105 ---


Composite Score:          234.70
FFT             Mflops:    61.59    (N=1024)
SOR             Mflops:   316.93    (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:    51.03
Sparse matmult  Mflops:   111.84    (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU              Mflops:   632.10    (M=100, N=100)

--- GDC 1g (dmd 0.102 / GCC v3.4.1) ---


Composite Score:          409.91
FFT             Mflops:   231.33    (N=1024)
SOR             Mflops:   315.89    (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:    57.60
Sparse matmult  Mflops:   627.14    (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU              Mflops:   817.56    (M=100, N=100)

--- GCC v3.4.1 ---


Composite Score:          394.51
FFT             Mflops:   222.48    (N=1024)
SOR             Mflops:   316.93    (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:    57.85
Sparse matmult  Mflops:   567.41    (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU              Mflops:   807.89    (M=100, N=100)

--- Intel C/C++ v8.0 ---


Composite Score:          442.65
FFT             Mflops:   231.33    (N=1024)
SOR             Mflops:   456.62    (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:    58.36
Sparse matmult  Mflops:   534.99    (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU              Mflops:   931.97    (M=100, N=100)

GDC 1g does better than GCC with the same 'backend' and runtime and also quite
well compared to Intel. Way to go Walter and David Friedman!!

To balance things out a little, I've seen DMD do very well with other benchmarks
using character and integral primatives (rather than floating point) but it
appears maybe it could use some fp tuning.

- Dave

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:

Thomas Kuehne wrote:

 I'm currently adding various benchmarks to DStress.
 SciMark2 has some interesting results:

Here are the results from the SciMark2, on Mac OS X 10.3:

gcc (3.4.2):
CFLAGS=-O3
 Composite Score:          124.06
 FFT             Mflops:   119.14    (N=1024)
 SOR             Mflops:   177.11    (100 x 100)
 MonteCarlo:     Mflops:    16.21
 Sparse matmult  Mflops:   147.60    (N=1000, nz=5000)
 LU              Mflops:   160.25    (M=100, N=100)

time:
 ./scimark2  25.29s user 0.27s system 87% cpu 29.277 total

gdc (0.8):
DFLAGS=-O2 -frename-registers -fomit-frame-pointer -fweb
 Composite Score:          121.13
 FFT             Mflops:   119.80    (N=1024)
 SOR             Mflops:   172.67    (100 x 100)
 MonteCarlo:     Mflops:    15.39
 Sparse matmult  Mflops:   128.00    (N=1000, nz=5000)
 LU              Mflops:   169.82    (M=100, N=100)

time:
 ./scimark2  26.05s user 0.30s system 83% cpu 31.552 total

The flags used seemed a little unequal, but I used the same.

--anders

PS. It had a bug in CLOCKS_PER_SEC_, similar to the other one.
     For the record: "not Windows" is not the same as "linux"! :)

"Thomas Kuehne" <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:

Anders F Björklund schrieb:
 PS. It had a bug in CLOCKS_PER_SEC_, similar to the other one.
      For the record: "not Windows" is not the same as "linux"! :)

Thanks, fixed.

Thomas