[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IDL performance and FFTs (was: call external speed)
- Subject: IDL performance and FFTs (was: call external speed)
- From: roy.hansen(at)triad.no (Roy E. Hansen)
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 98 10:05:52 GMT
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.idl-pvwave
- Organization: TRIAD as
- Xref: news.doit.wisc.edu comp.lang.idl-pvwave:12161
In article <Pine.SO4.4.03.9809141531430.9709-100000@sukak>,
Karl Krieger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> It really depends on the application. I wrote a LINKIMAGE wrapper for the
> FFTW package ( http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~fftw ) and compared the speed to
> IDL's native FFT routine. The speed gain for single precision
> real->complex 2d transforms is about 2.5 on a SUN Ultra/170 and about 2.3
> on a Pentium/133 under WinNT, so it's really worth the effort if you want
> to do FFT of large data sets.
We did a small comparison of the FFT performance in IDL 5.1.1
compared with the Matlab 5.2 version for a PII-400 with Win-NT,
and found that Matlab was approx 4 times faster. We also found
that the FFT in IDL 5.1.1 was faster than in IDL 5.1 on an other
PII-400 with Win95.
This raises a few questions:
- Does there exist any optimized versions of IDL for the PII and
PPro with W95 and Win-NT?
- Does anybody know what the performance gain is using an optimized
version compared to the standard version?
- Is the IDL performance operating system dependent for the INTEL
- What's the main differences of version 5.1.1 and 5.1 ?
- Are there any benchmarks of numerical performance for IDL
compared to other software packages, like Matlab?
- If the FFTW (which is free) outperforms the native FFT in IDL,
why don't RSI use that implementation? Is this a silly question?