# Benchmarks

hrodstein

Thu, 04/22/2010 - 03:38 pm

The total time to run the benchmark on the 2006 MacBook Pro was 54.77 seconds versus 30.35 on the 2010 MacBook Pro.

Here are the details:

**** test on Macintosh OS X10.6.3 using 6.20 and 121 passes; Mac Book Pro 2100 i7

Create new graph time: 124.98ms, relative speed= 1.78

big data update time: 58.25ms, relative speed= 1.37

curve fit time: 741.47µs, relative speed= 1.46

user curve fit time: 11.68ms, relative speed= 1.36

double complex fft time: 531.88µs, relative speed= 1.72

single complex fft time: 518.60µs, relative speed= 1.60

double real fft time: 255.68µs, relative speed= 1.58

single real fft time: 242.43µs, relative speed= 1.52

5 pass smooth time: 279.95µs, relative speed= 1.47

Sort 8192 points time: 11.84ms, relative speed= 1.62

WaveStats time: 139.58µs, relative speed= 1.45

simple eqn time: 470.12µs, relative speed= 1.11

exp eqn time: 634.93µs, relative speed= 1.35

sqrt eqn time: 498.00µs, relative speed= 1.38

sin eqn time: 324.76µs, relative speed= 1.44

User fit fctn time: 419.51µs, relative speed= 1.45

MatrixOp eqn time: 15.88µs, relative speed= 1.83

**** done ****

total test time= 30.3483

**** test on Macintosh OS X10.6.3 using 6.12 and 121 passes

Create new graph time: 202.17ms, relative speed= 1.48

big data update time: 99.08ms, relative speed= 1.45

curve fit time: 1.41ms, relative speed= 1.34

user curve fit time: 20.79ms, relative speed= 1.71

double complex fft time: 1.04ms, relative speed= 1.42

single complex fft time: 992.81µs, relative speed= 1.20

double real fft time: 482.43µs, relative speed= 1.17

single real fft time: 448.32µs, relative speed= 1.10

5 pass smooth time: 521.51µs, relative speed= 1.04

Sort 8192 points time: 24.95ms, relative speed= 1.53

WaveStats time: 248.28µs, relative speed= 1.07

simple eqn time: 467.41µs, relative speed= 2.99

exp eqn time: 745.09µs, relative speed= 2.70

sqrt eqn time: 781.24µs, relative speed= 2.26

sin eqn time: 577.25µs, relative speed= 2.01

User fit fctn time: 722.18µs, relative speed= 1.79

MatrixOp eqn time: 35.69µs, relative speed= 0.67

**** done ****

total test time= 50.1788

--

J. J. Weimer

Chemistry / Chemical & Materials Engineering, UAHuntsville

April 22, 2010 at 05:23 pm - Permalink

**** test on Macintosh OS X10.6.3 using 6.20 and 121 passes

Create new graph time: 206.54ms, relative speed= 1.45

big data update time: 99.94ms, relative speed= 1.43

curve fit time: 1.39ms, relative speed= 1.35

user curve fit time: 20.61ms, relative speed= 1.72

double complex fft time: 1.04ms, relative speed= 1.42

single complex fft time: 991.39µs, relative speed= 1.20

double real fft time: 486.61µs, relative speed= 1.16

single real fft time: 445.80µs, relative speed= 1.10

5 pass smooth time: 521.13µs, relative speed= 1.04

Sort 8192 points time: 24.39ms, relative speed= 1.57

WaveStats time: 256.93µs, relative speed= 1.04

simple eqn time: 664.27µs, relative speed= 2.10

exp eqn time: 1.03ms, relative speed= 1.95

sqrt eqn time: 876.45µs, relative speed= 2.02

sin eqn time: 634.70µs, relative speed= 1.83

User fit fctn time: 761.85µs, relative speed= 1.70

MatrixOp eqn time: 34.83µs, relative speed= 0.69

**** done ****

total test time= 51.5081

--

J. J. Weimer

Chemistry / Chemical & Materials Engineering, UAHuntsville

April 22, 2010 at 05:32 pm - Permalink

HP Pavilion p6320y running AMD Phenom II X4 820 and Windows7 64bit.

**** test on Personal (Build 7600)6.1.7600 using 6.12 and 121 passes; HP AMD Phenom II x4

Create new graph time: 100.18ms, relative speed= 2.99

big data update time: 90.35ms, relative speed= 1.58

curve fit time: 1.39ms, relative speed= 1.35

user curve fit time: 15.09ms, relative speed= 2.35

double complex fft time: 1.04ms, relative speed= 1.42

single complex fft time: 791.35µs, relative speed= 1.50

double real fft time: 408.08µs, relative speed= 1.38

single real fft time: 403.26µs, relative speed= 1.22

5 pass smooth time: 339.44µs, relative speed= 1.60

Sort 8192 points time: 14.31ms, relative speed= 2.67

WaveStats time: 630.31µs, relative speed= 0.42

simple eqn time: 534.88µs, relative speed= 2.61

exp eqn time: 824.48µs, relative speed= 2.44

sqrt eqn time: 717.41µs, relative speed= 2.47

sin eqn time: 645.37µs, relative speed= 1.80

User fit fctn time: 548.14µs, relative speed= 2.36

MatrixOp eqn time: 22.26µs, relative speed= 1.07

**** done ****

total test time= 35.2478

April 25, 2010 at 09:38 am - Permalink

Early 2011 Macbook Pro with 8 GB of Ram, 1 GB vram, 5400 RPM HDD

**** test on Macintosh OS X10.6.7 using 6.21 and 121 passes; Early 2011 MBP

Create new graph time: 118.60ms, relative speed= 2.52

big data update time: 50.81ms, relative speed= 2.82

curve fit time: 654.89µs, relative speed= 2.88

user curve fit time: 6.45ms, relative speed= 5.50

double complex fft time: 422.30µs, relative speed= 3.49

single complex fft time: 403.66µs, relative speed= 2.94

double real fft time: 205.60µs, relative speed= 2.74

single real fft time: 198.97µs, relative speed= 2.47

5 pass smooth time: 256.83µs, relative speed= 2.11

Sort 8192 points time: 11.14ms, relative speed= 3.43

WaveStats time: 134.72µs, relative speed= 1.98

simple eqn time: 267.20µs, relative speed= 5.22

exp eqn time: 397.90µs, relative speed= 5.05

sqrt eqn time: 295.25µs, relative speed= 5.99

sin eqn time: 281.92µs, relative speed= 4.13

User fit fctn time: 204.35µs, relative speed= 6.32

MatrixOp eqn time: 11.86µs, relative speed= 2.01

**** done ****

total test time= 26.1131

This laptop has two gpu's in it, and it didn't seem to matter which one was enabled at the time of testing (forced by gfxCardStatus 2.0.1). Also, I was able to decrease the total test time by about 9 seconds by hiding the application while it ran (cmd-h), reminding us that suppressing graphics is a great way to get faster performance with current hardware, without the need to upgrade.

I will post another update with a workstation running a 6-core 3.2GHz i980x cpu later this week.

April 20, 2011 at 05:32 am - Permalink

**** test on Professional Service Pack 1 (Build 7601)6.1.7601 using 6.21 and 121 passes; i7-980X

Create new graph time: 56.38ms, relative speed= 5.31

big data update time: 57.46ms, relative speed= 2.49

curve fit time: 881.71µs, relative speed= 2.14

user curve fit time: 6.98ms, relative speed= 5.08

double complex fft time: 569.89µs, relative speed= 2.58

single complex fft time: 534.00µs, relative speed= 2.22

double real fft time: 283.55µs, relative speed= 1.99

single real fft time: 259.83µs, relative speed= 1.89

5 pass smooth time: 223.35µs, relative speed= 2.43

Sort 8192 points time: 8.93ms, relative speed= 4.28

WaveStats time: 383.77µs, relative speed= 0.70

simple eqn time: 322.31µs, relative speed= 4.33

exp eqn time: 493.32µs, relative speed= 4.08

sqrt eqn time: 429.01µs, relative speed= 4.12

sin eqn time: 443.55µs, relative speed= 2.62

User fit fctn time: 242.02µs, relative speed= 5.34

MatrixOp eqn time: 15.18µs, relative speed= 1.57

**** done ****

total test time= 20.8849

April 20, 2011 at 05:31 am - Permalink

--

J. J. Weimer

Chemistry / Chemical & Materials Engineering, UAHuntsville

April 19, 2011 at 04:27 pm - Permalink

Create new graph time: 201.20ms, relative speed= 1.49

big data update time: 134.42ms, relative speed= 1.07

curve fit time: 1.80ms, relative speed= 1.05

user curve fit time: 17.82ms, relative speed= 1.99

double complex fft time: 1.58ms, relative speed= 0.93

single complex fft time: 1.16ms, relative speed= 1.02

double real fft time: 550.47µs, relative speed= 1.03

single real fft time: 591.89µs, relative speed= 0.83

5 pass smooth time: 507.10µs, relative speed= 1.07

Sort 8192 points time: 19.62ms, relative speed= 1.95

WaveStats time: 287.52µs, relative speed= 0.93

simple eqn time: 856.57µs, relative speed= 1.63

exp eqn time: 1.30ms, relative speed= 1.54

sqrt eqn time: 1.12ms, relative speed= 1.58

sin eqn time: 906.11µs, relative speed= 1.28

User fit fctn time: 547.45µs, relative speed= 2.36

MatrixOp eqn time: 41.59µs, relative speed= 0.57

**** done ****

total test time= 60.3425

I've got the highest test time! (And a pretty old machine too.)

April 20, 2011 at 01:14 am - Permalink

**** test on Professional (Build 7600)6.1.7600 using 6.20 and 121 passes; Dual 2 GHz PowerPC G5 Mac Pro

Create new graph time: 769.24ms, relative speed= 0.39

big data update time: 134.70ms, relative speed= 1.06

curve fit time: 15.96ms, relative speed= 0.12

user curve fit time: 19.53ms, relative speed= 1.82

double complex fft time: 939.57µs, relative speed= 1.57

single complex fft time: 869.26µs, relative speed= 1.37

double real fft time: 459.42µs, relative speed= 1.23

single real fft time: 416.98µs, relative speed= 1.18

5 pass smooth time: 330.39µs, relative speed= 1.64

Sort 8192 points time: 14.38ms, relative speed= 2.66

WaveStats time: 647.14µs, relative speed= 0.41

simple eqn time: 334.59µs, relative speed= 4.17

exp eqn time: 647.36µs, relative speed= 3.11

sqrt eqn time: 485.81µs, relative speed= 3.64

sin eqn time: 646.08µs, relative speed= 1.80

User fit fctn time: 369.56µs, relative speed= 3.50

MatrixOp eqn time: 123.93µs, relative speed= 0.19

**** done ****

total test time= 156.86

April 20, 2011 at 04:06 am - Permalink

I updated my posts because I mis-identified the processor I Was testing (it is a 980X)

I threw all the data here on a graph, along with some other benchmarks I've made and have some questions about consistency of the benchmark...

First of all, the first part of the test takes the longest amount of time to complete and is graphics intensive. The time to complete the benchmark isn't a real measure of only the cpu performance, but of the graphics system, which is strongly both OS and gpu dependent. Because of this, you can't really compare CPU vs. CPU based solely on the time to complete the test, especially across platforms.

The desktop machines reported(i980x, phenom) lagged behind severely in the wavestats test, while the laptops excelled... Why is this, I wonder?

My i980x should theoretically be mopping the floor with my laptop i7, as it has roughly 50% higher clock speed per core and about 50% the memory bandwidth… However, it only wins out in 4 of the 16 tests, one of which is the graphics test...

Perhaps it is time to update the benchmark with some multi-threaded tests?

April 20, 2011 at 05:37 am - Permalink

64bit Win7 with 32 Bit Igor Igor 6.21

32.1 s with the window open vs 27.5 s with Igor minimized - see below

Igor window Open:

**** test on Professional (Build 7600)6.1.7600 using 6.21 and 121 passes; Core i7 860 @ 2.8 GHz 64bit Win7 4 Gb Ram

Create new graph time: 113.80ms, relative speed= 2.63

big data update time: 67.45ms, relative speed= 2.12

curve fit time: 899.39µs, relative speed= 2.10

user curve fit time: 7.12ms, relative speed= 4.98

double complex fft time: 577.78µs, relative speed= 2.55

single complex fft time: 551.85µs, relative speed= 2.15

double real fft time: 285.08µs, relative speed= 1.98

single real fft time: 262.26µs, relative speed= 1.88

5 pass smooth time: 214.49µs, relative speed= 2.53

Sort 8192 points time: 8.73ms, relative speed= 4.38

WaveStats time: 369.70µs, relative speed= 0.72

simple eqn time: 363.76µs, relative speed= 3.84

exp eqn time: 471.47µs, relative speed= 4.26

sqrt eqn time: 436.31µs, relative speed= 4.05

sin eqn time: 432.44µs, relative speed= 2.69

User fit fctn time: 242.62µs, relative speed= 5.33

MatrixOp eqn time: 14.58µs, relative speed= 1.64

**** done ****

total test time= 32.122

Igor Minimized:

**** test on Professional (Build 7600)6.1.7600 using 6.21 and 121 passes; Core i7 860 @ 2.8 GHz 64bit Win7 4 Gb Ram

Create new graph time: 100.13ms, relative speed= 2.99

big data update time: 67.06ms, relative speed= 2.13

curve fit time: 897.49µs, relative speed= 2.10

user curve fit time: 7.13ms, relative speed= 4.97

double complex fft time: 577.56µs, relative speed= 2.55

single complex fft time: 541.11µs, relative speed= 2.20

double real fft time: 285.11µs, relative speed= 1.98

single real fft time: 262.05µs, relative speed= 1.88

5 pass smooth time: 221.16µs, relative speed= 2.45

Sort 8192 points time: 8.70ms, relative speed= 4.39

WaveStats time: 379.42µs, relative speed= 0.70

simple eqn time: 363.05µs, relative speed= 3.84

exp eqn time: 471.47µs, relative speed= 4.26

sqrt eqn time: 437.58µs, relative speed= 4.04

sin eqn time: 432.42µs, relative speed= 2.69

User fit fctn time: 242.58µs, relative speed= 5.33

MatrixOp eqn time: 14.60µs, relative speed= 1.64

**** done ****

total test time= 27.4538

April 22, 2011 at 08:21 am - Permalink

32 sec in front, 23 in background ....

April 27, 2011 at 12:18 am - Permalink

To do this, install the apple developer tools (Xcode) located on your os X install disc. Then, use the Quartz Debug application located here:

/Developer/Applications/Performance Tools/Quartz Debug

Click Window-> Quartz Debug Settings.

Choose Beam Sync -> Disable

The reason for the speedup is that vsync only allows one frame to be drawn per refresh. My laptop defaults to 60 Hz, so the maximum number of frames per second is 60. Indeed, during the benchmark, I was pulling 57-59 fps (checked by at-monitor). After disabling vsync, I was seeing numbers between 320-340 fps instantaneous and 160 fps average.

All other parts of the test were unaffected by this, so if you need to draw graphs very quickly, you might consider disabling vsync and see if it gives any performance improvement.

Create new graph time: 122.34ms, relative speed= 2.45 (Vsync automatic)

Create new graph time: 81.75ms, relative speed= 3.66 (Vsync off); 49% faster

Edit:

Additional gains were realized by disabling 2D acceleration.

Create new graph time: 77.01ms, relative speed= 3.89 (Vsync off, 2D Acceleration off); 58% faster

And surprising marginal gains were again seen by forcing the cpu integrated graphics using gfxCardStatus 2.01.

Create new graph time: 74.85ms, relative speed= 4.00 (Vsync off, 2D Acceleration off, int. gpu forced); 63% faster

June 1, 2011 at 05:08 am - Permalink

**** test on Macintosh OS X10.7.2 using 6.22 and 121 passes; 2 x 2.93 GHz 6-Core Xeon Mac Pro, 32 GB

Create new graph time: 126.72ms, relative speed= 2.36

big data update time: 61.70ms, relative speed= 2.32

curve fit time: 751.68µs, relative speed= 2.51

user curve fit time: 7.11ms, relative speed= 4.99

double complex fft time: 491.70µs, relative speed= 2.99

single complex fft time: 499.29µs, relative speed= 2.38

double real fft time: 239.37µs, relative speed= 2.36

single real fft time: 226.45µs, relative speed= 2.17

5 pass smooth time: 290.15µs, relative speed= 1.87

Sort 8192 points time: 12.36ms, relative speed= 3.09

WaveStats time: 139.59µs, relative speed= 1.91

simple eqn time: 366.47µs, relative speed= 3.81

exp eqn time: 547.17µs, relative speed= 3.67

sqrt eqn time: 400.80µs, relative speed= 4.41

sin eqn time: 312.43µs, relative speed= 3.72

User fit fctn time: 240.22µs, relative speed= 5.38

MatrixOp eqn time: 12.96µs, relative speed= 1.84

**** done ****

total test time= 29.9256

With Igor hidden (which is cheating of course)

**** test on Macintosh OS X10.7.2 using 6.22 and 121 passes; 2 x 2.93 GHz 6-Core Xeon Mac Pro, 32 GB

Create new graph time: 73.08ms, relative speed= 4.10

big data update time: 61.36ms, relative speed= 2.33

curve fit time: 746.97µs, relative speed= 2.53

user curve fit time: 7.27ms, relative speed= 4.88

double complex fft time: 492.37µs, relative speed= 2.99

single complex fft time: 498.94µs, relative speed= 2.38

double real fft time: 239.61µs, relative speed= 2.36

single real fft time: 225.67µs, relative speed= 2.18

5 pass smooth time: 288.36µs, relative speed= 1.88

Sort 8192 points time: 12.35ms, relative speed= 3.10

WaveStats time: 139.36µs, relative speed= 1.91

simple eqn time: 362.95µs, relative speed= 3.85

exp eqn time: 546.15µs, relative speed= 3.68

sqrt eqn time: 403.36µs, relative speed= 4.39

sin eqn time: 312.17µs, relative speed= 3.73

User fit fctn time: 239.06µs, relative speed= 5.41

MatrixOp eqn time: 12.87µs, relative speed= 1.86

**** done ****

total test time= 22.327

November 4, 2011 at 05:15 pm - Permalink

**** test on Professional Service Pack 2 (Build 3790)5.2.3790 using 6.22 and 121 passes; 2.60 GHz AMD Phenom 9950, 16 GB, Win XP 64

Create new graph time: 122.29ms, relative speed= 2.45

big data update time: 85.79ms, relative speed= 1.67

curve fit time: 1.32ms, relative speed= 1.43

user curve fit time: 9.89ms, relative speed= 3.59

double complex fft time: 1.03ms, relative speed= 1.43

single complex fft time: 865.34µs, relative speed= 1.37

double real fft time: 422.99µs, relative speed= 1.33

single real fft time: 439.24µs, relative speed= 1.12

5 pass smooth time: 341.78µs, relative speed= 1.59

Sort 8192 points time: 13.52ms, relative speed= 2.83

WaveStats time: 185.53µs, relative speed= 1.44

simple eqn time: 612.97µs, relative speed= 2.28

exp eqn time: 941.52µs, relative speed= 2.14

sqrt eqn time: 790.28µs, relative speed= 2.24

sin eqn time: 679.69µs, relative speed= 1.71

User fit fctn time: 371.28µs, relative speed= 3.48

MatrixOp eqn time: 26.01µs, relative speed= 0.92

**** done ****

total test time= 39.499

With Igor minimized this drops to 28.7802 s. Probably because the "Create new graph time" is cut almost in half.

November 4, 2011 at 05:13 pm - Permalink

Any processor with turbo-boost is inherently difficult to benchmark. Turbo boost is a technology that automatically over clocks your processor by steps, depending on the temperature, power consumption and number of active cores. Because of this issue, you may not be running full speed as you think you are. I have found, however, that my simulations finish quicker if I just point a fan at my laptop while it is grinding away.

A nice overview of turbo-boost can be found on wikipedia. I have attached my latest benchmark below, with integrated graphics forced, disabled 2D acceleration and beam sync via quartz debug.

**** test on Macintosh OS X10.7.2 using 6.22 and 121 passes; 2.2 GHz Quad core MBP 8,2, 8 GB ram

Create new graph time: 85.48ms, relative speed= 3.50

big data update time: 54.32ms, relative speed= 2.64

curve fit time: 650.88µs, relative speed= 2.90

user curve fit time: 7.35ms, relative speed= 4.82

double complex fft time: 423.66µs, relative speed= 3.48

single complex fft time: 407.57µs, relative speed= 2.91

double real fft time: 207.15µs, relative speed= 2.72

single real fft time: 199.60µs, relative speed= 2.47

5 pass smooth time: 260.13µs, relative speed= 2.09

Sort 8192 points time: 11.27ms, relative speed= 3.39

WaveStats time: 138.01µs, relative speed= 1.93

simple eqn time: 269.35µs, relative speed= 5.18

exp eqn time: 402.24µs, relative speed= 5.00

sqrt eqn time: 299.86µs, relative speed= 5.90

sin eqn time: 283.29µs, relative speed= 4.11

User fit fctn time: 205.88µs, relative speed= 6.28

MatrixOp eqn time: 11.72µs, relative speed= 2.04

**** done ****

total test time= 23.1571

November 7, 2011 at 08:16 am - Permalink

Igor (64-bit)

`**** test on Win7 Professional Service Pack 1 (Build 7601)6.1.7601 using 6.23 and 121 passes; i7-3930K 6 cores Win7 x64 Igor x64, 32GB RAM Create new graph time: 64.89ms, relative speed= 4.61 big data update time: 39.63ms, relative speed= 3.61 curve fit time: 506.93µs, relative speed= 3.72 user curve fit time: 3.73ms, relative speed= 9.52 double complex fft time: 372.70µs, relative speed= 3.95 single complex fft time: 348.10µs, relative speed= 3.41 double real fft time: 179.75µs, relative speed= 3.14 single real fft time: 172.00µs, relative speed= 2.86 5 pass smooth time: 163.65µs, relative speed= 3.32 Sort 8192 points time: 7.39ms, relative speed= 5.17 WaveStats time: 81.90µs, relative speed= 3.26 simple eqn time: 171.18µs, relative speed= 8.15 exp eqn time: 278.05µs, relative speed= 7.23 sqrt eqn time: 207.41µs, relative speed= 8.53 sin eqn time: 212.89µs, relative speed= 5.46 User fit fctn time: 136.67µs, relative speed= 9.46 MatrixOp eqn time: 14.07µs, relative speed= 1.70 **** done **** total test time= 18.1146`

Igor (32-bit)

`**** test on Professional Service Pack 1 (Build 7601)6.1.7601 using 6.22 and 121 passes; i7-3930K 6 cores Win7 x64 Igor x32, 32GB RAM Create new graph time: 75.43ms, relative speed= 3.97 big data update time: 47.65ms, relative speed= 3.00 curve fit time: 604.79µs, relative speed= 3.12 user curve fit time: 4.85ms, relative speed= 7.31 double complex fft time: 464.54µs, relative speed= 3.17 single complex fft time: 342.43µs, relative speed= 3.47 double real fft time: 300.30µs, relative speed= 1.88 single real fft time: 181.83µs, relative speed= 2.71 5 pass smooth time: 189.11µs, relative speed= 2.87 Sort 8192 points time: 7.62ms, relative speed= 5.02 WaveStats time: 94.29µs, relative speed= 2.83 simple eqn time: 169.04µs, relative speed= 8.26 exp eqn time: 275.59µs, relative speed= 7.29 sqrt eqn time: 211.72µs, relative speed= 8.35 sin eqn time: 224.09µs, relative speed= 5.19 User fit fctn time: 148.07µs, relative speed= 8.73 MatrixOp eqn time: 13.62µs, relative speed= 1.75 **** done **** total test time= 21.2596`

Igor 64bit with data from Igor 32bit as baseline

`**** test on Professional Service Pack 1 (Build 7601)6.1.7601 using 6.23 and 121 passes; Create new graph time: 65.97ms, relative speed= 1.14 big data update time: 39.63ms, relative speed= 1.20 curve fit time: 504.63µs, relative speed= 1.19 user curve fit time: 3.71ms, relative speed= 1.29 double complex fft time: 373.09µs, relative speed= 1.27 single complex fft time: 348.21µs, relative speed= 1.00 double real fft time: 180.32µs, relative speed= 1.63 single real fft time: 174.40µs, relative speed= 1.02 5 pass smooth time: 166.75µs, relative speed= 1.14 Sort 8192 points time: 7.39ms, relative speed= 1.03 WaveStats time: 85.07µs, relative speed= 1.11 simple eqn time: 156.02µs, relative speed= 1.08 exp eqn time: 267.04µs, relative speed= 1.05 sqrt eqn time: 187.18µs, relative speed= 1.13 sin eqn time: 207.08µs, relative speed= 1.08 User fit fctn time: 131.58µs, relative speed= 1.14 MatrixOp eqn time: 14.07µs, relative speed= 0.89 **** done **** total test time= 17.7826`

February 28, 2012 at 01:33 pm - Permalink

**** test on WIN 7 using 6.30 and 121 passes; Core i7 3770k

Create new graph time: 37.44ms, relative speed= 8.00

big data update time: 35.44ms, relative speed= 4.04

curve fit time: 800.36µs, relative speed= 2.36

user curve fit time: 3.60ms, relative speed= 9.84

double complex fft time: 334.91µs, relative speed= 4.40

single complex fft time: 304.25µs, relative speed= 3.90

double real fft time: 158.36µs, relative speed= 3.56

single real fft time: 150.02µs, relative speed= 3.28

5 pass smooth time: 150.45µs, relative speed= 3.61

Sort 8192 points time: 6.84ms, relative speed= 5.59

WaveStats time: 80.29µs, relative speed= 3.32

simple eqn time: 139.34µs, relative speed= 10.02

exp eqn time: 229.45µs, relative speed= 8.76

sqrt eqn time: 177.05µs, relative speed= 9.99

sin eqn time: 176.52µs, relative speed= 6.59

User fit fctn time: 111.33µs, relative speed= 11.61

MatrixOp eqn time: 12.62µs, relative speed= 1.89

**** done ****

total test time= 12.759

July 20, 2012 at 03:17 pm - Permalink

If you get the latest build you will get the fix for this slow-down that I introduced when I fixed a bug in curve fit threading.

John Weeks

WaveMetrics, Inc.

support@wavemetrics.com

July 20, 2012 at 04:01 pm - Permalink

**** test on Macintosh OS X10.9.2 using 6.34 and 121 passes

**** MacBook Pro Late 2013 2.6 GHz I7 16GB RAM OS 10.9.2

Create new graph time: 118.84ms, relative speed= 2.52

big data update time: 42.63ms, relative speed= 3.36

curve fit time: 518.17µs, relative speed= 3.64

user curve fit time: 4.39ms, relative speed= 8.08

double complex fft time: 322.54µs, relative speed= 4.57

single complex fft time: 298.06µs, relative speed= 3.99

double real fft time: 150.95µs, relative speed= 3.74

single real fft time: 142.81µs, relative speed= 3.45

5 pass smooth time: 207.85µs, relative speed= 2.61

Sort 8192 points time: 8.88ms, relative speed= 4.30

WaveStats time: 97.10µs, relative speed= 2.75

simple eqn time: 174.01µs, relative speed= 8.02

exp eqn time: 280.15µs, relative speed= 7.18

sqrt eqn time: 192.89µs, relative speed= 9.17

sin eqn time: 220.06µs, relative speed= 5.28

User fit fctn time: 140.25µs, relative speed= 9.22

MatrixOp eqn time: 10.79µs, relative speed= 2.21

**** done ****

total test time= 24.2226

With command window closed and Igor Pro put in background as quickly as possible ...

**** test on Macintosh OS X10.9.2 using 6.34 and 121 passes

**** MacBook Pro Late 2013 2.6 GHz I7 16GB RAM OS 10.9.2

Create new graph time: 56.47ms, relative speed= 5.30

big data update time: 41.74ms, relative speed= 3.43

curve fit time: 518.24µs, relative speed= 3.64

user curve fit time: 4.40ms, relative speed= 8.06

double complex fft time: 328.25µs, relative speed= 4.49

single complex fft time: 299.51µs, relative speed= 3.97

double real fft time: 154.07µs, relative speed= 3.66

single real fft time: 143.35µs, relative speed= 3.43

5 pass smooth time: 207.10µs, relative speed= 2.62

Sort 8192 points time: 8.83ms, relative speed= 4.33

WaveStats time: 96.47µs, relative speed= 2.77

simple eqn time: 174.03µs, relative speed= 8.02

exp eqn time: 280.48µs, relative speed= 7.17

sqrt eqn time: 192.81µs, relative speed= 9.17

sin eqn time: 219.49µs, relative speed= 5.30

User fit fctn time: 138.19µs, relative speed= 9.35

MatrixOp eqn time: 9.66µs, relative speed= 2.47

**** done ****

total test time= 16.2594

--

J. J. Weimer

Chemistry / Chemical & Materials Engineering, UAHuntsville

April 10, 2014 at 03:09 pm - Permalink

April 10, 2014 at 09:53 am - Permalink

Did it!

--

J. J. Weimer

Chemistry / Chemical & Materials Engineering, UAHuntsville

April 10, 2014 at 03:18 pm - Permalink

John Weeks

WaveMetrics, Inc.

support@wavemetrics.com

April 11, 2014 at 09:36 am - Permalink

Yes.

--

J. J. Weimer

Chemistry / Chemical & Materials Engineering, UAHuntsville

April 11, 2014 at 11:06 am - Permalink

Create new graph time: 126.15ms, relative speed= 2.37

big data update time: 49.75ms, relative speed= 2.88

curve fit time: 577.79µs, relative speed= 3.26

user curve fit time: 5.43ms, relative speed= 6.54

double complex fft time: 352.52µs, relative speed= 4.18

single complex fft time: 336.69µs, relative speed= 3.53

double real fft time: 181.27µs, relative speed= 3.11

single real fft time: 174.31µs, relative speed= 2.82

5 pass smooth time: 228.26µs, relative speed= 2.38

Sort 8192 points time: 9.92ms, relative speed= 3.86

WaveStats time: 118.96µs, relative speed= 2.24

simple eqn time: 203.24µs, relative speed= 6.87

exp eqn time: 318.22µs, relative speed= 6.32

sqrt eqn time: 233.84µs, relative speed= 7.56

sin eqn time: 240.80µs, relative speed= 4.83

User fit fctn time: 162.32µs, relative speed= 7.96

MatrixOp eqn time: 10.57µs, relative speed= 2.26

**** done ****

total test time= 26.9465

June 11, 2014 at 07:37 pm - Permalink

32 bit Igor

**** test on Windows 8 Professional (Build 9200)6.2.9200 using 6.34 and 121 passes; i7 4970k @ 4.9Ghz

Create new graph time: 52.44ms, relative speed= 5.71

big data update time: 32.97ms, relative speed= 4.34

curve fit time: 419.00µs, relative speed= 4.50

user curve fit time: 3.15ms, relative speed= 11.25

double complex fft time: 345.18µs, relative speed= 4.27

single complex fft time: 240.33µs, relative speed= 4.94

double real fft time: 164.28µs, relative speed= 3.44

single real fft time: 121.42µs, relative speed= 4.05

5 pass smooth time: 101.68µs, relative speed= 5.34

Sort 8192 points time: 4.82ms, relative speed= 7.93

WaveStats time: 60.87µs, relative speed= 4.38

simple eqn time: 118.00µs, relative speed= 11.83

exp eqn time: 191.99µs, relative speed= 10.47

sqrt eqn time: 144.75µs, relative speed= 12.22

sin eqn time: 157.84µs, relative speed= 7.37

User fit fctn time: 98.34µs, relative speed= 13.14

MatrixOp eqn time: 10.86µs, relative speed= 2.20

**** done ****

total test time= 13.6788

64-bit Igor

**** test on Windows 8 Professional (Build 9200)6.2.9200 using 6.34 and 121 passes; i7 4970k @ 4.9Ghz

Create new graph time: 47.80ms, relative speed= 6.26

big data update time: 27.30ms, relative speed= 5.25

curve fit time: 1.93ms, relative speed= 0.98

user curve fit time: 2.61ms, relative speed= 13.60

double complex fft time: 277.13µs, relative speed= 5.31

single complex fft time: 243.02µs, relative speed= 4.89

double real fft time: 131.44µs, relative speed= 4.29

single real fft time: 124.43µs, relative speed= 3.95

5 pass smooth time: 113.22µs, relative speed= 4.79

Sort 8192 points time: 4.47ms, relative speed= 8.55

WaveStats time: 49.68µs, relative speed= 5.37

simple eqn time: 107.31µs, relative speed= 13.01

exp eqn time: 213.34µs, relative speed= 9.42

sqrt eqn time: 125.92µs, relative speed= 14.05

sin eqn time: 134.37µs, relative speed= 8.66

User fit fctn time: 91.95µs, relative speed= 14.06

MatrixOp eqn time: 12.12µs, relative speed= 1.97

**** done ****

total test time= 12.3603

Even though the 64-bit version outperformed the 32-bit version overall, it is curious that it falls flat on the curve fit test. Does anyone have an ideal why this might be?

September 10, 2014 at 10:00 pm - Permalink

That is odd.

John Weeks

WaveMetrics, Inc.

support@wavemetrics.com

September 11, 2014 at 09:08 am - Permalink

hmm, the comparison between IP6 and IP7 surprised me a bit!

**** test on Macintosh OS X10.11.6 using 6.37 and 121 passes; iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015)

Create new graph time: 164.28ms, relative speed= 1.82

big data update time: 40.53ms, relative speed= 3.53

curve fit time: 563.94µs, relative speed= 3.34

user curve fit time: 4.48ms, relative speed= 7.92

double complex fft time: 315.65µs, relative speed= 4.67

single complex fft time: 278.30µs, relative speed= 4.27

double real fft time: 148.55µs, relative speed= 3.80

single real fft time: 133.43µs, relative speed= 3.69

5 pass smooth time: 201.60µs, relative speed= 2.69

Sort 8192 points time: 8.40ms, relative speed= 4.55

WaveStats time: 105.02µs, relative speed= 2.54

simple eqn time: 173.16µs, relative speed= 8.06

exp eqn time: 306.49µs, relative speed= 6.56

sqrt eqn time: 193.90µs, relative speed= 9.12

sin eqn time: 230.50µs, relative speed= 5.05

User fit fctn time: 132.54µs, relative speed= 9.75

MatrixOp eqn time: 19.50µs, relative speed= 1.23

**** done ****

total test time= 30.6379

**** test on Macintosh OS X10.11.6 using 7.00 and 121 passes; iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015)

Create new graph time: 223.85ms, relative speed= 1.34

big data update time: 155.12ms, relative speed= 0.92

curve fit time: 221.20µs, relative speed= 8.53

user curve fit time: 3.59ms, relative speed= 9.89

double complex fft time: 359.19µs, relative speed= 4.10

single complex fft time: 337.72µs, relative speed= 3.52

double real fft time: 179.87µs, relative speed= 3.14

single real fft time: 165.10µs, relative speed= 2.98

5 pass smooth time: 117.49µs, relative speed= 4.62

Sort 8192 points time: 6.37ms, relative speed= 6.01

WaveStats time: 36.86µs, relative speed= 7.24

simple eqn time: 194.48µs, relative speed= 7.18

exp eqn time: 280.49µs, relative speed= 7.17

sqrt eqn time: 219.87µs, relative speed= 8.04

sin eqn time: 221.08µs, relative speed= 5.26

User fit fctn time: 119.42µs, relative speed= 10.82

MatrixOp eqn time: 21.62µs, relative speed= 1.11

**** done ****

total test time= 55.7927

August 25, 2016 at 01:16 am - Permalink

The biggest slow downs seem to be in the graphics operations. Perhaps not surprising since IP7 supports Retina?

Modest slow downs in some operations are interesting.

Big speed ups in MatrixOP and other functions are good news.

Thanks.

--

J. J. Weimer

Chemistry / Chemical & Materials Engineering, UAH

August 25, 2016 at 07:14 am - Permalink

You're right! This is what Wavemetrics says:

"Macintosh Retina and Windows high-resolution displays bring a more pleasing visual experience but also present performance challenges. Previously, one point lines were one pixel wide. Now, on high-resolution displays, such lines are two pixels wide and, depending on the operating system, graphics technology and the actual data, drawing can be thousands of times slower."

August 25, 2016 at 08:32 am - Permalink

And now with testing IP6 using the IP7 measurement as baseline.

The machine is the same as in http://www.igorexchange.com/node/1489#comment-4988.

November 28, 2016 at 11:50 am - Permalink