Originally posted by Artemis3
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
8-Way Linux Distribution Benchmarks On The Intel Core i9 9900K - One Distro Wins 67% Of The Time
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Zyklon View Post
My comment was in general that I don’t see a point in doing Octave benchmarks at all, as someone who cares even just a litte bit about performance in scientific computing would never consider Octave in the first place. Even if you run Octave on a dual Xeon machine with terabytes of RAM, Julia on a Raspberry Pie will burn it to the ground with ease. Here are some numbers to compare: https://julialang.org/benchmarks
Would really be rad if you’re interested in including Julia benchmarks! Here are some, for example:
A collection of Julia benchmarks available for CI tracking from the JuliaLang/julia repository - JuliaCI/BaseBenchmarks.jl
https://github.com/JuliaCI/BenchmarkTools.jl
Most of the time you use the builtin functions, anyway. Most of these have native and optimized implementations. Then you run the data trough vector operations, that are performed by BLAS-compatible libraries. I'm not sure you can beat that performance-wise.
On the other hand, sure, basic looping, branching and function calling is quite slow in Octave (though there was a LLVM-based JIT in the works). But I use it a lot, and I've never been disappointed by its performance.
Vectorizing can be quite hard for newcomers, though: I once helped a guy speed up his materials simulation from a couple days of runtime to a couple seconds. That was with MATLAB, mind you (which is faster than Octave in the aforementioned worst-cases, without JIT at least).
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Zyklon View PostAccording to Tiobe, Julia is already #43 while just having reached v1.0 – Octave is not even mentioned while it exists for how many years?
https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index//
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by coder View PostI think there are still way more Octave users than Julia. I occasionally use Octave, but not enough to be worth investing time in learning something else. The only other sort of comparable thing I find myself using is numpy.
I'm not arguing against Julia benchmarks - particularly if it's good at scaling to multiple cores. I'm just saying that Octave is hardly as irrelevant as you seem to imply.
According to Tiobe, Julia is already #43 while just having reached v1.0 – Octave is not even mentioned while it exists for how many years?
Julia is the future scripting language, as it can replace Matlab, Python, R, sh, bash, *sh and several others, like Octave, Scilab, Sage etc. Just like Rust will replace a lot of C, C++, Java etc. I always hated the fact that there are so many languages – normal programmers are never able to really utilize them. Take shell scripting as an example, this is pure crap. Being able to reduce this number significantly will allow programmers to get better. Compared with the enormous power of Julia, these are the reasons why this language is so important.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dxxvi View PostI suggest that Manjaro should be replaced by ArcoLinux which is closer to ArchLinux, I think.
Leave a comment:
-
I suggest that Manjaro should be replaced by ArcoLinux which is closer to ArchLinux, I think.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by coder View PostAre those kernel parameters? Doesn't the Kernel disable certain mitigations based on runtime detection of the CPU model? I thought this was used by Ryzen, to avoid certain mitigations needed for Intel CPUs. If that's true, then only the latest kernels will know about the i9 and its security capabilities.
So, rather than kernel parameters, isn't there something in sysfs to query about which mitigations are active? Or maybe that's what you're doing. Forgive my ignorance, but I'm probably not the only one who hasn't followed this too closely.
Thanks for your patience.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Michael View PostAll the mitigations for Spectre/Meltdown are shown on the automated system hardware/software table within the article.
So, rather than kernel parameters, isn't there something in sysfs to query about which mitigations are active? Or maybe that's what you're doing. Forgive my ignorance, but I'm probably not the only one who hasn't followed this too closely.
Thanks for your patience.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by coder View PostIt would be helpful if you could also summarize the Specter/Meltdown status of these Kernels. My hunch is that Clear pulls such a big lead on I/O because is circumventing certain software workarounds that the Coffee Lake Refresh CPUs implement in hardware.
Generally speaking, I/O is least affected by things like compiler optimizations.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Michael View PostIt is used by at least a number of some data centers / cloud, IoT, and other environments but exactly where it's used doesn't seem to be widely published.
Generally speaking, I/O is least affected by things like compiler optimizations.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: