[Mono-list] JVM performance: JVM as a basis for CLR

[Kunle Odutola]

Here are the results for fib:

JAVA
====

D:\Temp\bmark>java  -showversion fibj
java version "1.3.0"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.3.0-C)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.3.0-C, mixed mode)

starting
fib(40)=165580141 took 4.476
fib(40)=165580141 took 4.4670000000000005

.NET
====

D:\Temp\bmark>csc /o /unsafe+ /checked- fibj.cs
Microsoft (R) Visual C# Compiler Version 7.00.9254 [CLR version v1.0.2914]
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 2000-2001. All rights reserved.

D:\Temp\bmark>fibj
starting
fib(40)=165580141 took 00:00:06.7797488
fib(40)=165580141 took 00:00:06.7797488


D:\Temp\bmark>csc fibj.cs
Microsoft (R) Visual C# Compiler Version 7.00.9254 [CLR version v1.0.2914]
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 2000-2001. All rights reserved.

D:\Temp\bmark>fibj
starting
fib(40)=165580141 took 00:00:07.0501376
fib(40)=165580141 took 00:00:07.0501376

------------- BEGIN
fibj.cs ------------------------------------------------------------
public class fibj
{
    public static int fib(int i)
    {
		if(i<2) return 1;
		return fib(i-1)+fib(i-2);
    }

    public static void Main(string[] args)
    {
		System.Console.WriteLine("starting");
		for(int iter=0;iter<2;iter++)
		{
	    	int i = 40;
	    	//long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
	    	long start = System.DateTime.Now.Ticks;
	    	int result = fib(i);
	    	System.TimeSpan span = new
System.TimeSpan(System.DateTime.Now.Ticks-start);
	    	System.Console.WriteLine("fib("+i+")="+result+" took "+span);
		}
    }
}
------------- END
 fibj.cs ------------------------------------------------------------


.NET Beta 2 does take a beating on the fib tests as you indicated. Seems
constant at approx 30%.

Cheers!,

Kunle


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mono-list-admin@ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-admin@ximian.com]On
> Behalf Of Tom
> Sent: 22 July 2001 01:18
> To: mono-list@ximian.com
> Subject: [Mono-list] JVM performance: JVM as a basis for CLR
>
>
> Given that there have been lots of arguments against
> basing a Mono runtime (CLI/CLR) on a JVM based on
> performance, I was curious to see how well Microsoft's
> CRL compares to Java VMs in terms of performance.  So,
> without claiming that these are anywhere near complete
> benchmarks, I tested two simple cases: "fib" and
> "convolution".