Re: IDL 5.3 Performance ?

["Richard Tyc" <richt(at)sbrc.umanitoba.ca>]

I did install IDL 5.2.1 and it did show a major improvement in some areas:

Platform: Dell 420  Dual Pentium III 733 MHz, 512 Mb RDRAM, Matrox G400 Max

                                              IDL5.3       IDL5.2.1
TIME_TEST3                            6.405         4.235
GRAPHICS_TIMES3                 4.593         2.625    ? not sure why-same
card ??
IO test                                     0.578         0.594

Some significant differences
Invert 192^2 random matrix         0.266         0.07799
Generate 1000000 random nos   0.141         0.063
Smooth 512x512 float array        0.109         0.047


My own application ran 20% faster

Rich

David McClain <dmcclain@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
news:sa1qmsfchse80@corp.supernews.com...
> The only fair way to make this comparison is to install the old IDL 5.2x
on
> your new machine and run the same code. There are so many hardware
> variations with respect to bus width to memory, how many processors, how
> large and what mapping the secondary and primary caches offer, etc, etc. I
> would be interested to hear your results...
>
> David McClain, Sr. Scientist
> Raytheon Systems Co.
> Tucson, AZ
>
> Richard Tyc <richt@sbrc.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message
> 87q5b0$g0k$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca">news:87q5b0$g0k$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> > IDL speed gurus:.
> >
> > I just received my new Dell machine last week. It's a top of the line
dual
> > processor Pentium which should be blistering fast.  I promptly began to
do
> > some speed tests using the idlspec2 from JD Smith at Cornell (results
have
> > been sent...) and also some app specific tests using my medical image
> > application for which we bought the machine.  Needless to say, I am not
> > impressed with the performance so far but am confused at what the
problem
> > is. I am leaning toward saying its IDL 5.3 if this is possible.
> >
> > The current machine in question is a Dell Precision Workstation 420,
dual
> > Pentium III 733 MHz, 512 Mb Rambus RDRAM Memory on NT4 SP5.  It uses a
> > relatively low-end graphics card, a Matrox G400 Max.  I tend to think
this
> > may be where the problem lies.  It had IDL 5.3 installed
> >
> > I compared the performance with a previous machine I got which is now in
> the
> > hands of our mechanical engineers running Autodesks Mechanical Desktop.
> > It was a Dell Precision Workstation 410, dual 700 MHz Pentium III, 1024
Mb
> > SDRAM, with a screaming fast Wildcat 4000 graphics card. It had IDL
5.2.1
> > installed.
> >
> > Anyway, the tests in question should really be exploiting the CPU
> > performance so I thought it was irrelevant the older Dell had the high
end
> > graphics card.  I noticed the TIME_TEST3 performance was alot worse.
For
> > example running an empty for loop 2000000 times took 0.07799 units on
the
> > 700 MHz vs 0.172 on the new 733 MHz Dell.
> >
> > My app also takes almost twice as long on the current Dell and most of
the
> > work is number crunching and displaying rendered volumes (IDLgrvolume)
> which
> > should not take advantage of high end graphics cards like the wildcat
but
> > rather CPU performance because it uses a software ray tracing technique.
> >
> > So, the main difference seems to be the old machine had IDL5.2.1 and the
> new
> > IDL5.3 and I know from SPEC benchmarks the new Dell using the 733 Mhz
> > Pentium, the Rambus memory etc IS faster.  So, is it possible IDL 5.3
may
> > run applications/benchmarks slower ?  It's hard to believe and I think
> other
> > factors are at play but its odd even the CPU speed tested in idlspec2 is
> > slower.
> >
> > Q. for JD Smith: is the is2_53.sav test program alot different than the
> > version for IDL 5.2 ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Any comments/ideas ?
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
>
>