>>But a benchmark is pointless if you aren't comparing like for like<< According to you it defeats the point when we do compare like to like -- "if you can jus

>>But a benchmark is pointless if you aren't comparing like for like<< According to you it defeats the point when we do compare like to like -- "if you can just call out to C libraries". >>yet people are clearly taking the results as some sort of serious indicator<< Offer them something better. >>sending two different cars around two different tracks<< No. It's like saying here's the track - Ruby guy bring out your best cars, Python guy bring out your best cars - and sending them around the same track. The possible mismatch between programs written for quad-core and those written for single-core is marked. You can mention the difference between CPU time and wall-clock time because both are intentionally shown, along with "CPU Load" so you can see how much difference quad-core has made. And as draegtun informed you, there's another set of measurements that removes that difference by forcing all the programs onto a single core. The problem with the Ruby binary-trees programs is that they run out of memory. http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32q/program.php?test=binarytrees&lang=yarv&id=2 http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32q/program.php?tes...