Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4
- From: Mike Pall <mikelu-1010@...>
- Date: 2010年10月14日 21:38:57 +0200
Shmuel Zeigerman wrote:
> Javier Guerra Giraldez wrote:
> >time luajit-2.0.0-beta4 -e "for i=1,1e9 do end"
> >
> >real 0m0.864s
> >user 0m0.840s
> >sys 0m0.010s
> >
> >still not as good as mike's, but well into 21st century!
>
> I'm getting 0.359s with luajit-2.0.0-beta5 (built with MinGW), on a
> very cheap PC.
On a Core2: 1/time_in_seconds ~ CPU Frequency in GHz.
On a P4/Celeron: 1.5/time_in_seconds ~ CPU Frequency in GHz.
So, yes, I do have a 3GHz Core2.
--Mike
- References:
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, Mike Pall
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, KHMan
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, Miles Bader
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, KHMan
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, David Kastrup
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, KHMan
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, Mike Pall
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, Martin
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, Javier Guerra Giraldez
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, Shmuel Zeigerman