4 ms·
I ran the benchmark on my system It's a 6 years old system, fastest times are in the 25ns range - 2-wise+ is 5% slower than 2-wise - 3-wise is 46% slower tha
by africanboy 6y ago
I ran the benchmark on my system
It's a 6 years old system, fastest times are in the 25ns range
- 2-wise+ is 5% slower than 2-wise
- 3-wise is 46% slower than 2-wise
- 3-wise is 39% slower than 2-wise+
on the M1
- 2-wise+ is 40% slower than 2-wise
- 3-wise is 46% slower than 2-wise
- 3-wise is 4% slower than 2-wise+
- SekstiNi 6y agoInteresting, I ran it on my laptop (i7-7700HQ) with the following results: - 2-wise+ is 19% slower than 2-wise - 3-wise is 48% slower than 2-wise - 3-wise is 25% slower than 2-wise+ However, as mentioned in the post the numbers can vary a lot, and I noticed a maximum run-to-run difference of 23ms on two-wise.
- nottorp 6y agoOuch. This is on my $2500 i5 mbpro from 2018. $ ./two_or_three N = 1000000000, 953.7 MB starting experiments. two : 53.3 ns two+ : 60.1 ns three: 78.6 ns bogus 1375316400 ------ 2+ 12% slower than 2 3-wise 47% slower than 2 3-wise 30% slower than 2+ ------- Ratios aside, that's an interesting speed leap when the article gets 9 ms for 2-wise. Mind, the laptop had lots of applications running, i didn't clear it up to do a proper benchmark, but still.