mandelbrot benchmark N=16,000
Each chart bar shows how many times slower, one ↓ mandelbrot program was, compared to the fastest program.
These are not the only programs that could be written. These are not the only compilers and interpreters. These are not the only programming languages.
Column × shows how many times more each program used compared to the benchmark program that used least.
| sort | sort | sort | ||||
| × | Program Source Code | CPU secs | Elapsed secs | Memory KB | Code B | ≈ CPU Load |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | Fortran Intel #6 | 13.98 | 13.99 | 31,280 | 967 | 0% 0% 1% 100% |
| 1.4 | C++ g++ #9 | 19.58 | 19.60 | 32,072 | 726 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 1.4 | C++ g++ #8 | 20.21 | 20.22 | 32,076 | 742 | 0% 1% 0% 100% |
| 1.7 | C gcc #4 | 23.22 | 23.23 | 30,432 | 799 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 1.7 | C gcc #3 | 23.44 | 23.45 | 31,736 | 763 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 1.7 | C++ g++ #5 | 23.56 | 23.57 | 32,024 | 590 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 1.7 | C gcc #6 | 23.69 | 23.71 | 28,540 | 879 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 1.7 | C++ g++ #7 | 23.70 | 23.71 | 32,076 | 1017 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 1.7 | C gcc | 23.96 | 23.98 | 29,592 | 822 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 1.8 | ATS | 24.65 | 24.66 | 30,148 | 2148 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 1.8 | Ada 2005 GNAT #3 | 24.81 | 24.84 | 29,720 | 1805 | 0% 1% 1% 100% |
| 1.9 | ATS #2 | 26.17 | 26.18 | 320 | 1455 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 1.9 | Java 7 #2 | 26.92 | 26.93 | 67,880 | 796 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 2.0 | C++ g++ #6 | 27.30 | 27.32 | 31,756 | 1035 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 2.0 | Scala #4 | 28.01 | 28.03 | 195,456 | 786 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 2.1 | Java 7 #6 | 29.24 | 29.25 | 67,664 | 802 | 0% 1% 0% 100% |
| 2.5 | C++ g++ #2 | 35.48 | 35.50 | 32,024 | 687 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 3.0 | Java 7 #3 | 42.10 | 42.11 | 67,876 | 903 | 1% 0% 0% 100% |
| 3.1 | Java 7 | 42.83 | 42.84 | 14,392 | 665 | 1% 0% 0% 100% |
| 3.1 | Haskell GHC #2 | 43.96 | 43.98 | 35,364 | 782 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 3.2 | C# Mono #3 | 45.25 | 45.26 | 47,676 | 701 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 3.3 | C# Mono | 45.88 | 45.89 | 47,552 | 798 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 3.4 | Fortran Intel #4 | 47.34 | 47.35 | 57,868 | 611 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 3.4 | F# Mono #3 | 47.56 | 47.57 | 48,464 | 800 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 3.4 | Scala | 48.22 | 48.24 | 49,932 | 724 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 3.5 | Go #6 | 48.66 | 48.68 | 31,556 | 700 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 3.7 | C gcc #2 | 51.04 | 51.07 | 324 | 400 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 4.0 | Scala #2 | 56.01 | 56.03 | 17,792 | 454 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 4.0 | Fortran Intel #5 | 56.45 | 56.46 | 32,604 | 508 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 4.1 | C# Mono #2 | 57.44 | 57.45 | 13,868 | 484 | 1% 0% 0% 100% |
| 4.2 | Ada 2005 GNAT #2 | 58.07 | 58.10 | 964 | 572 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 4.5 | Clojure #5 | 63.57 | 63.60 | 108,512 | 1069 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 4.8 | Lisp SBCL | 67.12 | 67.14 | 36,004 | 2459 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 4.8 | Clojure #6 | 67.40 | 67.43 | 114,516 | 1069 | 2% 2% 1% 100% |
| 5.4 | Lisp SBCL #3 | 75.57 | 75.59 | 35,812 | 888 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 5.6 | Racket #4 | 78.27 | 78.30 | 50,748 | 796 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 5.6 | Pascal Free Pascal #3 | 78.74 | 78.76 | 8 | 530 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 5.7 | Racket #3 | 80.02 | 80.05 | 16,488 | 797 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 6.0 | Pascal Free Pascal #2 | 83.70 | 83.72 | 31,896 | 817 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 6.0 | Pascal Free Pascal | 83.71 | 83.74 | 31,896 | 820 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 6.1 | OCaml | 85.71 | 85.86 | 3,984 | 710 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 6.4 | Dart | 88.87 | 88.90 | 201,728 | 809 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 6.9 | Racket #2 | 96.28 | 96.32 | 15,260 | 585 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 7.7 | Racket | 107.46 | 107.50 | 14,908 | 517 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 11 | OCaml #6 | 150.49 | 150.53 | 1,636 | 444 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 13 | F# Mono #2 | 188.54 | 188.60 | 16,860 | 1043 | 1% 0% 0% 100% |
| 16 | C++ g++ #3 | 221.82 | 222.07 | 868 | 414 | 0% 1% 0% 100% |
| 17 | Pascal Free Pascal #4 | 240.09 | 240.15 | 31,200 | 748 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 27 | Erlang HiPE | 6 min | 6 min | 634,912 | 534 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 54 | Smalltalk VisualWorks #2 | 12 min | 12 min | 22,216 | 467 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 56 | Lua | 13 min | 13 min | 1,044 | 353 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 58 | Lua #6 | 13 min | 13 min | 24,428 | 623 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 59 | Lua #2 | 13 min | 13 min | 820 | 367 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 71 | Ruby JRuby #3 | 16 min | 16 min | 584,584 | 307 | 0% 0% 1% 100% |
| 99 | PHP #3 | 23 min | 23 min | 108,044 | 863 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 129 | Ruby JRuby #2 | 30 min | 30 min | 690,392 | 925 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 141 | Python 3 #2 | 30 min | 32 min | 6,748 | 777 | 1% 0% 0% 100% |
| 187 | PHP | 43 min | 43 min | 3,072 | 443 | 1% 0% 0% 100% |
| 201 | Python 3 #5 | 41 min | 46 min | 6,496 | 449 | 1% 0% 0% 100% |
| 225 | Perl #3 | 52 min | 52 min | 1,992 | 370 | 0% 1% 0% 100% |
| 344 | Ruby 2.0 #3 | 1h 20 min | 1h 20 min | 4,864 | 307 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 398 | C CINT #2 | 1h 32 min | 1h 32 min | 4,860 | 400 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| 449 | Ruby 2.0 #2 | 1h 44 min | 1h 44 min | 64,480 | 925 | 0% 0% 0% 100% |
| Fortran Intel | Bad Output | 485 | ||||
| Fortran Intel #3 | Bad Output | 754 | ||||
| Fortran Intel #2 | Bad Output | 813 | ||||
| JavaScript V8 #2 | Bad Output | 353 | ||||
| Perl #4 | Failed | 592 | ||||
| Python 3 #3 | Failed | 304 | ||||
| Scala #3 | Failed | 796 | ||||
| "wrong" (different) algorithm / less comparable programs | ||||||
| 0.5 | C gcc #5 | 7.10 | 7.11 | 15,896 | 1026 | |
| 0.9 | C++ g++ | 12.32 | 12.33 | 29,172 | 1239 | |
| 10 | Python 3 #6 | 139.47 | 139.59 | 45,576 | 1380 | |
mandelbrot benchmark : Generate Mandelbrot set portable bitmap file
cmp program output N = 200 with this 5KB output file to check your program is correct before contributing.
We are trying to show the performance of various programming language implementations - so we ask that contributed programs not only give the correct result, but also use the same algorithm to calculate that result.
Each program should plot the Mandelbrot set [-1.5-i,0.5+i] on an N-by-N bitmap. Write output byte-by-byte in portable bitmap format.
For more information see Eric W. Weisstein, "Mandelbrot Set." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MandelbrotSet.html
Thanks to Greg Buchholz for this benchmark.