Correspondent from New York
One of our readers made a SciMark C++ version of the same Delphi SciMark codes.
scimark2_1c_cbuilder.exe compiled with XE2 C++ builder:
And here is the XE2 32 bit Delphi output:
scimark2_1c-Integer-XE2-32bit.exe / Size: 142 KB
One of our readers made a SciMark C++ version of the same Delphi SciMark codes.
scimark2_1c_cbuilder.exe compiled with XE2 C++ builder:
** **
** SciMark2 Numeric Benchmark, see http://math.nist.gov/scimark **
** for details. (Results can be submitted to pozo@nist.gov) **
** **
Using 2.00 seconds min time per kenel.
Composite Score: 455.03
FFT Mflops: 240.98 (N=1024)
SOR Mflops: 735.20 (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo: Mflops: 94.55
Sparse matmult Mflops: 315.84 (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU Mflops: 888.60 (M=100, N=100)
And here is the XE2 32 bit Delphi output:
scimark2_1c-Integer-XE2-32bit.exe / Size: 142 KB
Composite Score: 507,32
FFT Mflops: 264,42 (N=1024)
SOR Mflops: 783,91 (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo: Mflops: 112,69
Sparse matmult Mflops: 350,63 (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU Mflops: 1024,97 (M=100, N=100)
Article Source
Posts
2 comments:
It's not surprising that Delphi performs better than C++ Builder given how complex it is to implement a fully standards compliant C++ compiler. Embarcadero has made the right decision on spending more of their limited resources on Delphi.
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cross-platform/BenchmarkCppVsDotNet.aspx
I would love to see the C++ Builder numbers for code; Delphi not so much because if I'm going to program native I'll use C++.
Post a Comment