Moving up from Fortran, I needed to determine which modern development
language/platform generated the faster (fastest will vary according to
application, code design, and useage) compiled floating point-intensive
programs.
        Apparently, VB5.0 using the new, optimzing compiler is nowhere as good
as Microsoft keeps saying it is -- just a 2x performance increase over
VB5.0 P-code.
        However, Delphi is suprising for it's great performance right out of
the box!  Almost as fast as VC 5.0, and probably an easier development
environment to start with.

        Here's the figures:

1000x1000 array
        VC 5.0 Delphi 3.0 Lahey ELF90 VB 5.0 Optimzed VB 5.0 P-code
1st run:5(4)   5(4)       8(6)        13(10)           24(20) seconds
2nd run:4(3)   5(4)       8(6)        13(10)           24(19)

1500x1500 array
        VC 5.0 Delphi 3.0 Lahey ELF90 VB 5.0 Optimzed VB 5.0 P-code
1st run:9(8)   10(9)      17(13)      30(23)           60     seconds
2nd run:9(8)   9(9)       17(13)      29(22)           60

        The first number of pairs of numbers is the time from when the program
was told to start running the subroutine, until it finished (ie. total
time including array setup time).  The second number was the time
actually spend in the array calculation loop itself (run time).  Thus,
subtracting (total time) - (run time) = (overhead time), in general.
Either using program coded timers or stopwatch.

        The 1st run are times for the first time the program was launched and
executed.  The 2nd run is for the second time the program was asked to
run it again right after the 1st run (taking into some account overhead
due to setting up memory and program caching).

        Cyrix 6x86, 512KB cache, 32MB ram, 2.0GB EIDE, 1280x1024 Diamond
Stealth 3000 3D 4MB, Windows 95, Ethernet networked, desktop image, a
couple handy Windows TSRs loaded (eg. VSCAN), but generally nothing else
running from a clean start.

        David =)

Delphi 3.0 code-------------
unit Unit1;

interface

uses
  Windows, Messages, SysUtils, Classes, Graphics, Controls, Forms,
Dialogs,
  StdCtrls, Math;

type
  TForm1 = class(TForm)
    Start: TButton;
    MyMemo: TMemo;
    procedure StartClick(Sender: TObject);
  private
    { Private declarations }
  public
    { Public declarations }
  end;

var
  Form1: TForm1;

implementation

{$R *.DFM}
{$M 10000000,10000000}

procedure TForm1.StartClick(Sender: TObject);
var myArray : array [1..1000,1..1000] of double;
    StartTime, EndTime : TDateTime;
    k,j : integer;
begin
    for k := 1 to 1000 do
    for j := 1 to 1000 do
        myArray[k,j] := Random * 1000;

    StartTime := Time;

    for k := 1 to 1000 do
    for j := 1 to 1000 do
        myArray[k,j] := myArray[j,k] * myArray[k,j] - myArray[j,1001-j]
/ myArray[k,1001-k] * Log2(Random) / (Random + myArray[1001 -j,k]);

    EndTime := Time;

    MyMemo.Lines.Add ('Start Time: ' + TimeToStr(StartTime) + ' End
Time: ' + TimeToStr(endTime));
end;

end.

VC 5.0 code----------
#include <float.h>
#include <iostream.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>

#include <time.h>
#include <stdio.h>

double myArray[1500][1500];

void main( int argc, char *argv[] )
{
    char tmpbuf[128];    
        _tzset();

        _strtime( tmpbuf );    
        printf( "begin here - OS time:\t\t\t\t%s\n", tmpbuf );

    srand( (unsigned)time( NULL ) );

        int k,j;

        for (k = 0; k < 1501; k++)
                for (j = 0; j < 1501; j++)
                        myArray [k][j] = rand() * 1000;

    _strtime( tmpbuf );    
        printf( "start OS time:\t\t\t\t%s\n", tmpbuf );

        for (k = 0; k < 1501; k++)
                for (j = 0; j < 1501; j++)
                        myArray[k][j] = myArray[j][k] * myArray[k][j] - myArray[j][1501-j] /
myArray[k][1501-k] * log(rand()) / (rand() + myArray[1501-j][k]);

     _strtime( tmpbuf );    
         printf( "end OS time:\t\t\t\t%s\n", tmpbuf );

do k = 1,1000
do j = 1,1000
  call RANDOM_NUMBER ( Harvest = rnd)
  myArray(k,j) = rnd * 1000
end do
end do

write (*,*)  " Starting "

do k = 1,1000
do j = 1,1000
  call RANDOM_NUMBER ( Harvest = rnd )
  call RANDOM_NUMBER ( Harvest = rnd2 )
  myArray(k,j)=myArray(j,k)*myArray(k,j)-myArray(j,1001-j) /
myArray(k,1001-k)*Log(rnd) / (rnd2 + myArray(1001-j,k))
end do
end do

write (*,*)  " Stopping "
stop
end program Test

Basic code--------
Private Sub StartButton_Click()
dim myArray(1000,1000) as double
dim StartTime
dim EndTime
Dim k,j as integer

for k = 1 to 1000
for j = 1 to 1000
  myArray(k,j) = rnd*1000
next j
next k

starttime = time

for k = 1 to 1000
for j = 1 to 1000
  myArray(k,j) = myArray(j,k) * myArray(k,j) -
myArray(j,1001-j)/MyArray(k,1001-k) * log(rnd)/(rnd + myArray(1001-j,k)
next j
next k

EndTime = time

MyTextBox.Text = "Start Time: " + str(StartTime) + " End Time: " +
str(EndTime)
End Sub
----------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

Speed is only one option to take into account when selecting a
development tool, but as this thread is about speed, I though I would
mention this -

I wrote a program in Delphi 2.0 which included populated a ListView
control, very simple, nothing fancy. I ported the code to vb 4, the
code took just under half the time to run!

I like borlands Delphi, and in your case you are right to choose, it.

Thanks for the insight, David.

         Alan Davis, Southampton, England
         E-mail.al...@tcp.co.uk

: ToS...@TheSpam.NoEmail.Address (Alan Davis) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 1997 David Chien <chie...@uci.edu> wrote:

though it's a pleasure to hear that Delphi outruns Lahey FORTRAN, I'm
afraid that what you actually have measured is the performance of
random... That can be interesting on its own rights, but Delphi's
built-in random is too poor to be used for real calculations (old
multiplicative stuff inside). If you want real comparison I would advise
you to run the Whetstone test. If you need the source, drop me an Email.

Also I don't think that the speed should be the only consideration when
choosing the language. Delphi provides best-on-the-market environment,
but I would consider several other issues before porting a FORTRAN
program into a new language. For example, if you have a lot of
subroutines taking 2D arrays and their dimensions as arguments it's
going to be a real pain to convert them into Pascal. Conversion to C is
much easier (and you can use fort2c to do much of the job). If you don't
want to give up the user-friendly environment of Delphi, consider
Borland's C++ builder: it's Delphi-2 sister-product with the only
difference that it employs C++ instead of Pascal.

Good luck,
--
Eugene I Levin
Bielefeld, Germany

I'm sorry for coding my Email in the header.
Here is the right one:
L e v i n @ l h . b i c o s . d e

[edited newsgroup list to feature c.l.p.d.misc only]

: Le...@lh.bicos.de.nospam.com (Eugene I Levin -- remove "nospam.com" to reply!) wrote:

You will soon find version 2.0 of this random number generator
package at http://www.inconresearch.com/eoi

--
Stefan.Hoffmeis...@Uni-Passau.de
http://kakadu.rz.uni-passau.de/~w4hoff01/

Since you use the RNDfunction inside code timed it is difficult to say which
language is faster since every language uses internal functions for RND (which
in no case are subject for checking fastness of compiled program)

 (some motherboards

Eugene I Levin -- remove nospam.com to reply! wrote:

  Anyways, the close values for VC, Delphi and Fortran vs. VB suggests
that more than a poorly written random function is the cause.  Other
publications have already tested these compliers themselves, so I'm apt
to believe that these figures are pretty good in revealing the floating
point speeds of each.

  Also, the Fortran was Lahey's free complier off their web page, a
non-optimizing compiler.

  david =)

(I really look forward to 100MHz bus with 10ns SDRAM DIMMs)

--
=\
 *=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://home.sn.no/home/mobergru
=/               my own webserver @ http://pumba.qsd.no

Delphi's random() has been carefully hand-coded in the assembler, but
the multiplicative algorithm they use has been being severely criticized
since 60-s...

Happy coding,
--
Eugene I Levin
Bielefeld, Germany

I'm sorry for corrupting my Email in the header.
Here is the right one:
L e v i n @ l h . b i c o s . d e

I did as Eugene suggested and ran the Whetstone with Delphi v3.0 and
Powersofts Power++ (Watcom v11.0 C/C++ compiler) v2.0:

Power++ p0() and p3() inlined:      144.3 MFLOPS (1.66x)
                      not inlined:  113.0 MFLOPS (1.30x)

Delphi v3.0:                         86.7 MFLOPS (1.0x)

Timed on a DELL XPS P200s - Intel P5/200 - Win95 - 32 MB RAM

Default "fast code" opts. were used for both.

Code was basically just "copied and pasted" from Power++ to Delphi and then
some of the  syntax and names of some of the math functions were changed to
conform to Pascal and the Delphi math lib.

One other thing to note is that the for loop counter var. was moved from
the heap to the stack for both programs (so the code was compatible)
because the Delphi compiler issued a warning on that.

Hope this us useful to someone.

Dave F.

1.  You're using integer array indexes.  1,000,000 int increments, and
lookups.  I believe a long index value would shave some siginificant time.  It
could help the other languages too, though.

2.  You're relying heavily on the internal random number generator of each
language.  In addition to varying internal algorithms, that could for instance
poduce longer non-repeating streams at the expense of speed, VB is penalized
for calling a dll, instead of static linking.  The other compilers may even be
inlining the call.  This heavy reliance is probably the biggest reason why
compiled is comparatively underwhelming to p-code. I estimate 30%-50% of time
is spent calling the Rnd() function.

Check out the series of benchmarks in the May 1997 issue of Visual Basic
Programmer's
Journal comparing VB5 with VB3, VB4-16, VB4-32, Delphi 2, VC++4, VC++5, and
VJ++ 1.1  Overall, Delphi 2 beats out VB5 or is very close to VB5.  The
only
exception is with the OCX/ActiveX Form Load benchmark where VB5 is much
better than Delphi 2.  It will be interesting to see how these compare with
Delphi 3.
Gene

Eugene I Levin -- remove "nospam.com" to reply!
<Le...@lh.bicos.de.nospam.com> wrote in article
<33ca5b2a.49193...@news.bicos.de>...