/mobile Handheld Friendly website

 n-body benchmark N=50,000,000

Each chart bar shows how many times slower, one ↓ n-body 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 sortsort
  ×   Program Source Code CPU secs Elapsed secs Memory KB Code B ≈ CPU Load
1.0Fortran Intel #5 8.578.582601659  1% 1% 100% 1%
1.1C++ g++ #7 9.089.083441545  1% 0% 0% 100%
1.1C++ g++ #8 9.199.203441544  1% 1% 100% 1%
1.1C gcc #4 9.859.853441490  0% 1% 100% 0%
1.2C++ g++ #3 9.969.966321763  1% 2% 0% 100%
1.5C++ g++ #5 12.8212.838801749  0% 1% 100% 0%
1.8Ada 2005 GNAT #5 15.1015.111,2362427  1% 0% 0% 100%
2.3Fortran Intel #2 20.0520.065201496  0% 0% 0% 100%
2.4C++ g++ 20.2520.263441659  1% 0% 0% 100%
2.4C gcc 20.3220.333441173  0% 1% 100% 0%
2.4Fortran Intel 20.3420.352601389  0% 0% 0% 100%
2.4C++ g++ #6 20.5120.523441668  1% 0% 0% 100%
2.4C gcc #6 20.6720.683441180  0% 1% 100% 0%
2.5C gcc #3 21.0321.043441208  0% 1% 100% 0%
2.6C++ g++ #4 22.2422.252961428  0% 1% 100% 0%
2.6C gcc #5 22.5722.582961429  1% 0% 0% 100%
2.6C gcc #2 22.7022.713441263  1% 0% 0% 100%
2.7Fortran Intel #4 22.8222.832521172  0% 0% 100% 0%
2.7Fortran Intel #3 22.8922.902561299  0% 0% 0% 100%
2.7C# Mono #3 23.1023.1214,9161305  0% 100% 1% 0%
2.7C# Mono #2 23.2723.2814,9561410  0% 0% 1% 100%
2.7Scala 23.5523.5019,8561358  1% 99% 1% 1%
2.7Ada 2005 GNAT #3 23.4923.501,2401740  1% 0% 0% 100%
2.8Go 24.1924.197281310  0% 100% 1% 0%
2.8Haskell GHC #2 25.0024.402,1921874  1% 1% 100% 1%
2.9Java  #2 24.5024.4815,6561424  0% 100% 1% 0%
2.9C# Mono #6 25.1625.1714,8721289  100% 0% 1% 0%
2.9F# Mono 25.2125.2222,7801259  1% 100% 0% 1%
3.0Ada 2005 GNAT 25.9425.961,2401608  0% 1% 100% 0%
3.2Rust 27.7227.736721295  1% 0% 0% 100%
3.4Haskell GHC 30.9329.132,2121706  100% 2% 2% 2%
3.6Clojure 40.7931.1564,0762162  95% 14% 13% 11%
3.7C# Mono #5 31.7331.7415,2721485  100% 0% 0% 1%
3.8C# Mono #4 32.1632.1715,1201461  0% 0% 0% 100%
4.0Dart #2 34.7834.598,8161274  1% 1% 1% 100%
4.0Pascal Free Pascal 34.6734.6881308  0% 100% 0% 0%
4.3Pascal Free Pascal #2 37.2137.2381322  96% 0% 0% 4%
4.4Lisp SBCL #2 37.5537.563,9441398  0% 0% 1% 100%
4.5C# Mono 38.6438.6515,3521403  100% 0% 0% 1%
5.1Dart #3 43.8343.539,1601420  1% 1% 1% 100%
5.5Pascal Free Pascal #3 47.1847.1981418  0% 100% 0% 0%
5.6Lisp SBCL 47.6847.703,9441363  0% 0% 100% 1%
5.8OCaml 49.9249.935961239  0% 0% 0% 100%
6.5Racket #2 56.0456.0417,6641689  0% 0% 1% 100%
14Racket 116.05116.0620,7881496  0% 0% 0% 100%
19Erlang HiPE #3 162.90162.958,4281399  13% 87% 0% 0%
49Ruby JRuby #2 7 min7 min631,1441137  23% 31% 35% 15%
86PHP #3 12 min12 min2,5961082  0% 38% 62% 0%
115Python 3 16 min16 min4,2521181  0% 100% 0% 0%
137Perl #2 19 min19 min2,2801401  24% 16% 61% 1%
164Ruby #2 23 min23 min5,2801137  0% 1% 100% 0%
Dart Failed1689
"wrong" (different) algorithm / less comparable programs
1.4C++ g++ #2 12.0912.108802288

 n-body benchmark : Double-precision N-body simulation

ndiff -abserr 1.0e-8 program output N = 1000 with this 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 model the orbits of Jovian planets, using the same simple symplectic-integrator - see the Java program.

For background information see N-body problem. Useful symplectic integrators are freely available, for example the HNBody Symplectic Integration Package.

Thanks to Mark C. Lewis for this benchmark.

Revised BSD license

  Home   Conclusions   License   Play