Ubuntu : Intel® Q6600® quad-core
Computer Language Benchmarks Game      [[ Play ]]

- all benchmarks - n-body fannkuch-redux meteor-contest fasta fasta-redux spectral-norm reverse-complement mandelbrot k-nucleotide regex-dna pidigits chameneos-redux thread-ring binary-trees-redux binary-trees - all languages - Ada 2005 GNAT ATS C gcc Clojure C# Mono C++ g++ Dart Erlang HiPE F# Mono Fortran Intel Go Haskell GHC Java 7 Lisp SBCL OCaml Pascal Free Pascal Perl PHP Python 3 Racket Ruby 2.0 Ruby JRuby Scala x86 one core x64 quad-core x86 quad-core x64 one core

 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	14.21	3.61	27,032	967	99% 99% 99% 99%
1.4	C++ g++ #9	19.64	5.10	32,076	726	95% 95% 95% 100%
1.6	C gcc #4	23.25	5.83	27,596	799	100% 100% 100% 100%
1.6	C gcc #3	23.45	5.90	31,736	763	99% 99% 100% 99%
1.6	C gcc #6	23.72	5.95	25,484	879	100% 100% 100% 100%
1.7	C++ g++ #7	23.73	5.97	32,076	1017	99% 99% 99% 100%
1.7	C gcc	23.97	6.01	27,168	822	100% 100% 100% 100%
1.7	ATS	24.65	6.18	28,328	2148	100% 100% 100% 100%
1.7	Ada 2005 GNAT #3	24.84	6.26	33,276	1805	100% 100% 99% 99%
1.9	C++ g++ #6	27.33	6.87	31,756	1035	100% 99% 99% 100%
1.9	Java 7  #2	27.14	6.90	67,612	796	98% 98% 99% 99%
2.0	Scala #4	28.22	7.39	221,728	786	95% 95% 99% 95%
2.1	C++ g++ #8	20.26	7.45	32,076	742	37% 99% 99% 37%
2.1	Java 7  #6	29.56	7.55	67,600	802	97% 98% 98% 99%
3.0	Java 7  #3	42.29	10.72	68,128	903	99% 98% 100% 99%
3.1	Haskell GHC #2	43.94	11.02	33,928	782	100% 100% 100% 100%
3.4	C# Mono #3	45.94	12.15	49,644	701	93% 93% 93% 100%
3.4	Go #6	48.72	12.29	29,708	700	100% 100% 100% 100%
3.4	C# Mono	46.62	12.32	49,696	798	93% 93% 93% 99%
3.5	F# Mono #3	48.21	12.71	50,340	800	93% 100% 93% 93%
3.6	Scala	50.88	12.91	49,664	724	98% 98% 100% 98%
4.1	F# Mono #2	52.48	14.75	19,092	1043	92% 93% 89% 83%
4.7	Lisp SBCL	67.13	16.95	35,300	2459	99% 99% 99% 99%
5.1	Fortran Intel #4	48.73	18.41	60,388	611	96% 34% 96% 40%
5.1	Clojure #6	67.37	18.42	106,624	1069	95% 94% 90% 88%
5.5	Racket #4	78.39	19.81	50,784	796	99% 99% 100% 99%
6.0	OCaml	85.76	21.55	3,988	710	100% 100% 100% 100%
6.5	C++ g++ #5	23.57	23.58	32,024	590	62% 3% 11% 68%
7.3	ATS #2	26.19	26.20	320	1455	0% 0% 100% 0%
8.1	Lisp SBCL #3	75.59	29.10	35,816	888	63% 80% 47% 70%
8.8	Pascal Free Pascal #2	83.71	31.60	31,900	817	95% 35% 48% 88%
8.8	Pascal Free Pascal	83.70	31.64	31,900	820	94% 41% 95% 36%
9.2	Dart	88.91	33.22	201,932	809	99% 35% 99% 34%
9.9	C++ g++ #2	35.50	35.52	32,024	687	87% 0% 0% 13%
12	Java 7	42.94	42.90	14,240	665	0% 0% 100% 0%
14	C gcc #2	51.05	51.07	324	400	90% 0% 0% 10%
15	Scala #2	52.48	52.41	17,888	454	0% 0% 100% 0%
16	Clojure #5	63.71	56.14	109,624	1069	5% 97% 6% 6%
16	Fortran Intel #5	56.89	56.91	32,608	508	0% 0% 100% 0%
16	C# Mono #2	57.37	57.39	16,028	484	100% 0% 0% 0%
16	Ada 2005 GNAT #2	58.10	58.12	964	572	99% 0% 0% 1%
17	Pascal Free Pascal #4	240.07	60.15	30,340	748	100% 100% 100% 100%
21	Racket #3	76.58	76.57	17,300	797	0% 0% 100% 0%
22	Pascal Free Pascal #3	78.74	78.76	8	530	95% 0% 0% 6%
27	Racket #2	96.10	96.10	15,252	585	0% 19% 81% 0%
30	Erlang HiPE	6 min	107.28	662,920	534	94% 92% 91% 92%
30	Racket	107.40	107.38	14,912	517	0% 0% 100% 0%
42	OCaml #6	150.53	150.59	1,632	444	0% 0% 100% 1%
50	C++ g++ #3	178.57	178.72	868	414	43% 42% 12% 5%
91	PHP #3	21 min	5 min	108,068	863	100% 100% 100% 100%
122	Python 3 #2	29 min	7 min	6,772	777	100% 100% 100% 100%
197	Python 3 #5	47 min	11 min	25,748	449	100% 100% 100% 100%
222	Ruby JRuby #2	47 min	13 min	698,732	925	91% 95% 89% 89%
230	Perl #4	54 min	13 min	79,344	592	99% 98% 99% 98%
275	Ruby JRuby #3	16 min	16 min	586,208	307	49% 45% 7% 2%
391	PHP	23 min	23 min	3,076	443	16% 0% 0% 85%
429	Ruby 2.0 #2	1h 42 min	25 min	66,512	925	100% 100% 100% 99%
919	Perl #3	55 min	55 min	2,284	370	98% 1% 1% 1%
1,349	Ruby 2.0 #3	1h 21 min	1h 21 min	4,860	307	17% 81% 2% 1%
	Fortran Intel	Bad Output			485
	Fortran Intel #3	Bad Output			754
	Fortran Intel #2	Bad Output			813
	Python 3 #3	Failed			304
	Scala #3	Failed			796
"wrong" (different) algorithm / less comparable programs
0.5	C gcc #5	7.12	1.80	15,896	1026
0.9	C++ g++	12.50	3.14	25,216	1239
9.9	Python 3 #6	138.31	35.61	45,580	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.

  Home   Conclusions   License   Play