4 ms·

>Score: 130 >binarytrees 46.051 seconds Without any frame of reference, those values are meaningless. However there is one I can evaluate: >1.58 MFLOPS Giv

by bru 13y ago

>Score: 130 >binarytrees 46.051 seconds Without any frame of reference, those values are meaningless. However there is one I can evaluate: >1.58 MFLOPS Given I have an i7-2600 and its flops on benchmarks[1] (FPU Flops score: 8500.09 MFlops), that tells me something I could have guessed: performance is 3 orders of magnitude worse than native high performing code. Still, in order for this comparison to be complete, I'll have to - try this benchmark in Firefox with OdinMonkey, the new and very promising JS engine[2] - run a similar benchmark with "native" LUA edit: results obtained on W7 SP1 with 16GO RAM and Chrome 27. 1: http://www.maxxpi.net/results/show.php?ID=c3x2c5w6d7b7 http://www.maxxpi.net/results/show.php?ID=c3x2c5w6d7b7 2: did you know the logo was awesome? https://wiki.mozilla.org/File:Odinmonkey800.jpg https://wiki.mozilla.org/File:Odinmonkey800.jpg

evilpie 13y ago
John Howard is very cool. He already created the JägerMonkey and IonMonkey logo for us. We print them on shirts, cards and posters. http://monkeyink.com/ink/blog/archives/2011/01/jagermonkey_ima.php#.UcQ_HTizCR0 http://monkeyink.com/ink/blog/archives/2011/01/jagermonkey_i... http://monkeyink.com/ink/blog/archives/2012/02/its_ion_monkey.php#.UcQ_RjizCR0 http://monkeyink.com/ink/blog/archives/2012/02/its_ion_monke...
networked 13y ago
>Without any frame of reference, those values are meaningless. How about we compile some results right here? Below is what I get on an AMD Phenom II X4 965 PC with 8 GB RAM running Linux Mint 13 Maya, kernel version 3.2.0-48-generic x86_64. — Lua.vm.js in Firefox 21.0 Score: 115 binarytrees 56.978 seconds scimark 1.79 MFLOPS startup 0.431 seconds — Native Lua 5.2.2 ~> lua scimark.lua FFT 14.65 [1024] SOR 30.41 [100] MC 9.32 SPARSE 19.32 [1000, 5000] LU 23.70 [100] SciMark 19.48 [small problem sizes] ~> time lua binarytrees.lua 14.72 stretch tree of depth 15 check: -1 53974 trees of depth 4 check: -53974 13493 trees of depth 6 check: -13492 3373 trees of depth 8 check: -3372 843 trees of depth 10 check: -842 210 trees of depth 12 check: -210 52 trees of depth 14 check: -52 long lived tree of depth 14 check: -1 lua binarytrees.lua 14.72 5,99s user 0,01s system 99% cpu 6,001 total — Geekbench-2.4.3-Linux on the same computer http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2076712 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2076712 (the page includes detailed PC specifications) Edit: redid the native benchmarks with Lua 5.2.2. ----- Edit 2: The same set of benchmarks gives the following results on a ThinkPad X61s laptop with a Core 2 Duo L7500 CPU and 4 GB RAM running Linux Mint 13 Maya, kernel version 3.5.0-32-generic x86_64: — Lua.vm.js in Firefox 21.0 Score: 59 binarytrees 117.675 seconds scimark 0.95 MFLOPS startup 0.822 seconds — Native Lua 5.2.2 ~> lua scimark.lua FFT 6.55 [1024] SOR 15.36 [100] MC 4.11 SPARSE 10.24 [1000, 5000] LU 12.40 [100] SciMark 8.73 [small problem sizes] ~> time lua binarytrees.lua 14.72 stretch tree of depth 15 check: -1 53974 trees of depth 4 check: -53974 13493 trees of depth 6 check: -13492 3373 trees of depth 8 check: -3372 843 trees of depth 10 check: -842 210 trees of depth 12 check: -210 52 trees of depth 14 check: -52 long lived tree of depth 14 check: -1 lua binarytrees.lua 14.72 9,63s user 0,04s system 99% cpu 9,713 total — Geekbench-2.4.3-Linux http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2077111 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2077111
azakai 13y ago
> Without any frame of reference, those values are meaningless. The page explains how to run them natively as well. > performance is 3 orders of magnitude worse than native high performing code. Performance depends on the browser, which did you test on (there are some notes about that on the page)? Also, you can't just compare FLOPS in one test to a theoretical maximal FLOPS on your CPU (or another test), since it depends on the code being run. This is going to be tracked in realtime here, including a comparison to native, http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=11&view=breakdown&suite=asmjs-apps http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=11&view=breakdown&suite=asm... (but so far it hasn't shown results for that test yet, just an empty slot, hopefully later today though).
diaz 13y ago
For the sake of sharing my results using my low end laptop: Score: 34 binarytrees 206.886 seconds scimark 0.49 MFLOPS startup 1.19 seconds Using AMD E450, linux x64, Firefox 21. And as you say without other results at the page to compare I'm not sure how bad or good this is.

by bru 13y ago

evilpie 13y ago

John Howard is very cool. He already created the JägerMonkey and IonMonkey logo for us. We print them on shirts, cards and posters. http://monkeyink.com/ink/blog/archives/2011/01/jagermonkey_ima.php#.UcQ_HTizCR0 http://monkeyink.com/ink/blog/archives/2011/01/jagermonkey_i... http://monkeyink.com/ink/blog/archives/2012/02/its_ion_monkey.php#.UcQ_RjizCR0 http://monkeyink.com/ink/blog/archives/2012/02/its_ion_monke...

networked 13y ago

>Without any frame of reference, those values are meaningless. How about we compile some results right here? Below is what I get on an AMD Phenom II X4 965 PC with 8 GB RAM running Linux Mint 13 Maya, kernel version 3.2.0-48-generic x86_64. — Lua.vm.js in Firefox 21.0 Score: 115 binarytrees 56.978 seconds scimark 1.79 MFLOPS startup 0.431 seconds — Native Lua 5.2.2 ~> lua scimark.lua FFT 14.65 [1024] SOR 30.41 [100] MC 9.32 SPARSE 19.32 [1000, 5000] LU 23.70 [100] SciMark 19.48 [small problem sizes] ~> time lua binarytrees.lua 14.72 stretch tree of depth 15 check: -1 53974 trees of depth 4 check: -53974 13493 trees of depth 6 check: -13492 3373 trees of depth 8 check: -3372 843 trees of depth 10 check: -842 210 trees of depth 12 check: -210 52 trees of depth 14 check: -52 long lived tree of depth 14 check: -1 lua binarytrees.lua 14.72 5,99s user 0,01s system 99% cpu 6,001 total — Geekbench-2.4.3-Linux on the same computer http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2076712 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2076712 (the page includes detailed PC specifications) Edit: redid the native benchmarks with Lua 5.2.2. ----- Edit 2: The same set of benchmarks gives the following results on a ThinkPad X61s laptop with a Core 2 Duo L7500 CPU and 4 GB RAM running Linux Mint 13 Maya, kernel version 3.5.0-32-generic x86_64: — Lua.vm.js in Firefox 21.0 Score: 59 binarytrees 117.675 seconds scimark 0.95 MFLOPS startup 0.822 seconds — Native Lua 5.2.2 ~> lua scimark.lua FFT 6.55 [1024] SOR 15.36 [100] MC 4.11 SPARSE 10.24 [1000, 5000] LU 12.40 [100] SciMark 8.73 [small problem sizes] ~> time lua binarytrees.lua 14.72 stretch tree of depth 15 check: -1 53974 trees of depth 4 check: -53974 13493 trees of depth 6 check: -13492 3373 trees of depth 8 check: -3372 843 trees of depth 10 check: -842 210 trees of depth 12 check: -210 52 trees of depth 14 check: -52 long lived tree of depth 14 check: -1 lua binarytrees.lua 14.72 9,63s user 0,04s system 99% cpu 9,713 total — Geekbench-2.4.3-Linux http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2077111 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2077111

azakai 13y ago

> Without any frame of reference, those values are meaningless. The page explains how to run them natively as well. > performance is 3 orders of magnitude worse than native high performing code. Performance depends on the browser, which did you test on (there are some notes about that on the page)? Also, you can't just compare FLOPS in one test to a theoretical maximal FLOPS on your CPU (or another test), since it depends on the code being run. This is going to be tracked in realtime here, including a comparison to native, http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=11&view=breakdown&suite=asmjs-apps http://arewefastyet.com/#machine=11&view=breakdown&suite=asm... (but so far it hasn't shown results for that test yet, just an empty slot, hopefully later today though).

diaz 13y ago

For the sake of sharing my results using my low end laptop: Score: 34 binarytrees 206.886 seconds scimark 0.49 MFLOPS startup 1.19 seconds Using AMD E450, linux x64, Firefox 21. And as you say without other results at the page to compare I'm not sure how bad or good this is.