3 ms·
> In any case, the performance results were really outstanding (particularly vs Mono) Interesting. Do you have measurement results? According to my measurement
by Rochus 5y ago
> In any case, the performance results were really outstanding (particularly vs Mono)
Interesting. Do you have measurement results? According to my measurements the difference is not that big, see https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Mono-CLR-really-slower-than-CoreCLR/answer/Rochus-Keller https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Mono-CLR-really-slower-than-Cor..., especially the section Update September 15th.
- osigurdson 5y agoYes. Back to back runs were performed on identical hardware. The results varied depending on input but .net core universally outperformed mono 6.8 on Linux - in one case by 35%. This is quite encouraging since quite a bit of time (again depending on input) is spent in native code (where .NET is essentially idle).
- Rochus 5y agoInteresting, thanks. According to my measurements based on the Are-we-fast-yet suite the biggest difference is between Mono 5.2 and CoreCLR 5.0 on x64; about 28% speed-up from Mono to CoreCLR. The spread is smaller on x86 (about 18%). This speed-up is good but not the most impressive one I've ever seen.