x64 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 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

 spectral-norm benchmark N=5,500

Each chart bar shows how many times slower, one ↓ spectral-norm 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	C gcc #5	7.87	1.98	748	569	99% 99% 99% 100%
1.0	Fortran Intel #3	7.98	2.00	1,328	638	100% 100% 100% 100%
1.0	Fortran Intel	7.91	2.01	1,348	568	99% 99% 99% 99%
1.0	Ada 2005 GNAT #4	7.89	2.01	1,940	2762	98% 99% 99% 99%
1.3	C++ g++ #5	10.02	2.52	492	1044	100% 100% 100% 100%
1.3	C++ g++ #6	10.02	2.52	492	1044	100% 100% 100% 100%
1.4	C++ g++ #8	10.65	2.67	496	1278	100% 100% 100% 100%
1.4	C gcc #4	10.68	2.68	496	1139	100% 100% 100% 100%
1.4	ATS #4	10.65	2.71	720	2507	99% 97% 99% 99%
2.0	C gcc #3	15.80	3.96	748	463	100% 100% 100% 100%
2.0	Lisp SBCL #3	15.75	4.02	5,860	883	98% 98% 98% 98%
2.0	Lisp SBCL #2	15.75	4.02	5,848	906	98% 98% 99% 98%
2.0	Haskell GHC #4	15.70	4.04	1,584	984	97% 98% 95% 100%
2.1	Go #2	15.73	4.07	1,508	668	96% 97% 99% 96%
2.2	Ada 2005 GNAT #3	16.95	4.36	1,940	1702	94% 98% 99% 99%
2.2	OCaml #3	16.58	4.39	3,504	938	99% 98% 99% 99%
2.3	Java 7  #2	17.61	4.51	17,540	950	97% 97% 99% 98%
2.3	Scala #2	17.75	4.63	23,308	720	95% 95% 95% 99%
2.7	Racket #3	20.63	5.43	25,932	627	94% 97% 94% 95%
2.8	Clojure #6	18.75	5.51	58,160	808	85% 89% 86% 81%
2.8	Clojure #7	18.76	5.51	50,760	762	82% 82% 92% 83%
2.8	C# Mono #2	21.92	5.60	15,460	1063	98% 98% 98% 99%
3.7	Go #3	15.81	7.28	2,012	536	47% 49% 58% 64%
3.7	F# Mono #2	22.24	7.30	18,320	852	76% 76% 73% 79%
4.0	Fortran Intel #2	7.85	7.85	788	513	1% 0% 0% 100%
6.1	Erlang HiPE #2	47.48	12.09	22,836	747	99% 98% 98% 98%
7.9	OCaml #2	15.69	15.70	1,800	377	0% 0% 0% 100%
7.9	Go	15.71	15.71	1,772	411	91% 0% 0% 9%
7.9	Pascal Free Pascal	15.71	15.72	8	423	34% 0% 0% 66%
8.6	Java 7	17.02	16.98	18,316	514	0% 0% 100% 0%
8.8	Scala	17.81	17.47	22,688	404	1% 1% 100% 2%
10	C gcc	20.70	20.71	464	383	0% 0% 0% 100%
10	ATS	20.70	20.71	716	1138	0% 100% 0% 0%
10	C++ g++	20.76	20.76	1,076	452	0% 0% 0% 100%
11	Ada 2005 GNAT	21.76	21.77	1,504	710	84% 0% 0% 16%
11	C# Mono	21.86	21.87	14,360	459	0% 0% 0% 100%
11	Dart	22.17	22.18	41,580	477	0% 0% 0% 100%
13	Lisp SBCL	25.44	25.45	6,700	625	0% 0% 100% 0%
19	Erlang #2	145.61	36.78	16,772	747	99% 99% 99% 99%
19	Haskell GHC #2	112.36	37.70	7,076	403	66% 66% 66% 100%
19	Racket #2	37.83	37.83	20,816	532	0% 0% 0% 100%
20	Racket	40.23	40.23	19,472	446	95% 5% 0% 0%
29	Erlang HiPE	56.77	56.78	17,920	507	75% 25% 0% 0%
53	PHP #3	6 min	105.73	23,912	1193	99% 99% 98% 98%
54	Ruby 2.0 #3	6 min	107.29	33,912	828	95% 94% 94% 93%
102	Perl	200.90	200.97	5,516	333	0% 0% 0% 100%
102	Python 3 #5	13 min	202.54	39,668	437	99% 99% 100% 99%
112	Ruby JRuby #2	14 min	221.50	621,196	776	98% 98% 99% 98%
113	Erlang	222.95	223.03	19,936	507	90% 10% 0% 0%
119	Perl #3	15 min	235.36	10,404	846	100% 100% 100% 100%
130	Ruby JRuby #4	261.20	258.09	625,796	326	0% 47% 54% 1%
157	Ruby JRuby	5 min	5 min	625,052	292	1% 1% 29% 71%
160	Ruby 2.0 #4	5 min	5 min	7,736	326	58% 40% 2% 0%
199	Ruby 2.0	6 min	6 min	6,540	292	1% 3% 2% 100%
203	PHP #2	6 min	6 min	7,172	397	0% 0% 0% 100%
398	Python 3 #6	13 min	13 min	7,092	328	99% 0% 0% 1%
470	Python 3 #8	15 min	15 min	6,220	449	0% 84% 16% 0%
473	Perl #2	15 min	15 min	3,972	343	85% 15% 0% 0%
	Scala #4	Failed			1006
	Scala #3	Failed			982
"wrong" (different) algorithm / less comparable programs
1.0	C++ g++ #2	7.91	1.99	492	1330
1.1	C++ g++ #7	8.47	2.13	496	1283
2.0	C gcc #2	4.00	4.01	237,004	669
5.7	Python 3 #2	11.17	11.19	486,156	233

 spectral-norm benchmark : Eigenvalue using the power method

diff program output N = 100 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 calculate the spectral norm of an infinite matrix A, with entries a₁₁=1, a₁₂=1/2, a₂₁=1/3, a₁₃=1/4, a₂₂=1/5, a₃₁=1/6, etc

Each program must implement 4 separate functions / procedures / methods like the C# program.

For more information see challenge #3 in Eric W. Weisstein, "Hundred-Dollar, Hundred-Digit Challenge Problems" and "Spectral Norm".

From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hundred-DollarHundred-DigitChallengeProblems.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpectralNorm.html

Thanks to Sebastien Loisel for this benchmark.

  Home   Conclusions   License   Play