Subject: plot_options defaults and plot2d benchmarking
From: Raymond Toy (RT/EUS)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:22:04 -0400
Jaime Villate wrote:
> I also take this opportunity to show you a comparison of the performance
> of 5.15.0 RC1 with 3 different Lisp flavors, under Ubuntu Gutsy, in a
> 64-bit Intel Quad Core processor. The test was the plotting of a few
> implicit functions in 2D (see attached file). As you can see, Clisp is
> much slower that Sbcl and GCL in that context:
>
> LISP FLAVOR RESULT
> sbcl 23.0490 seconds (23.2170 elapsed) using 1957.658 MB
> gcl 32.5000 seconds (33.1100 elapsed)
> clisp 435.7032 seconds (436.4190 elapsed) using 13018.701 MB
Once you know that clisp compiles to bytecodes instead of machine code,
it's not really a surprise that clisp is much slower.
I recall that gcl was also the fastest at running the test suite, but I
think the required having an up-to-date version of sys-proclaim.lisp.
Not sure that's always kept up-to-date. (That file contains
declarations of functions for gcl, which really helps gcl generate
better code.)
Ray