https://kidoman.com/images/go-vs-cpp-after-both-optimized.png https://kidoman.com/images/go-vs-cpp-after-both-optimized.pn... In this picture - am I right in i

https://kidoman.com/images/go-vs-cpp-after-both-optimized.png https://kidoman.com/images/go-vs-cpp-after-both-optimized.pn... In this picture - am I right in interpreting it at 2048x2048 and 8 cores, that the optimised and tuned go code is nearly three times faster than the multithreaded optimised and tuned C++ code? How come the C++ is the same for 1C and 8C? Is this picture from one of the previous articles? EDIT: (No, I'm wrong, the C++ is single threaded!) It seems it's single threaded - and the last graph isn't showing the current level of C++ single threaded performance - which is ~36 seconds, with go at 21s for 8 threads. Final state of play is go at 18s multithreaded and C++ at 8s multithread and go at 81s single threaded and C++ at 36s single threaded. I read that from the third last graph. It's difficult to understand this ending of the article, as the subtitle is: "Further optimizations and a multi-threaded C++ version" and "Hurray multi-threading" I suggest the order of the article be changed around to have a 'recap on single threaded C++' at the start, and then the new figures - so that it concludes in straightforward manner. This quote from the article is wrong: "C++ is not more than twice as fast than an equivalent Go program at this stage." Correct me if I'm wrong, but in every case that I can see the C++ code will execute twice before the Go code is finished. It is more than twice as fast. By the same logic this "almost" is also wrong: "From taking 58.15 seconds (single threaded), it has now dropped to a extremely impressive 36.36 seconds (again single threaded), making it almost twice as fast as the optimized Go version." 36s < 81s/2