Posted by
Joachim Wesner on
Jan 23, 2008; 8:13pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/ImageJ-benchmarks-tp3697397p3697406.html
Hi
The sourcecode of Benchmark.java has a boolean that controls display
updating, if you set it to false, I get 2.9 vs. 3.2 sec on my "fast"
machine, only 10% difference and I use
a comparatively slow graphics card.
Reagarding the G5 results, my slowest systems is my Linux fileserver, which
is based on a pretty old low-power 700 MHz VIA C3 (x386 clone), a CPU
notoriously know for pretty bad
float performance. It nevertheless runs the benchmark (graphics update off)
in 36 secs. (java 1.5.0x)
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
Joachim Wesner
Michael Schmid
<
[hidden email]
N.AC.AT> An
Gesendet von:
[hidden email]
ImageJ Interest Kopie
Group
<
[hidden email]. Thema
GOV> Re: ImageJ benchmarks
23.01.2008 19:27
Bitte antworten
an
ImageJ Interest
Group
<
[hidden email].
GOV>
Hi Albert,
your OSX result is very strange!
On a similar machine (also 2 year sold) I got 3.5 seconds:
OSX 10.4.10, 2.1GHz PowerPC G5, 1GB DDR2 SDRAM, ATI Radeon X600 XT
(128 MB)
256 MB reserved for ImageJ and a lot of other applications open.
I have Java 1.5.0_07.
Maybe your Mac has a very slow graphics card? OSX performance
is known to depend significantly on the graphics performance,
and Benchmark.java contains a lot of updateScreen(imp);
commands.
On my OSX G5 machine, as an external plugin with
boolean showUpdates=false;
i.e. no image updates, it needs 2.6 s.
Concerning the remark of Jon about the similarity of Core Duo
and Quad, none of the number crunching routines called by the
benchmark is multithreaded and can take advantage of multi-
core CPUs.
Currently, ImageJ plugins use multithreading only for
processing stack slices (if the PARALLELIZE_STACKS flag is set -
it is for the majority of ImageJ built-in filter operations).
Michael
________________________________________________________________
On 23 Jan 2008, at 19:03, Jon Harman wrote:
> Windows XP Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4 Ghz .735 sec
>
> I'm surprised at the similarity between the core 2 quads and duos.
> Perhaps the mandrill image is too small. Image display may be a
> big part of the benchmark
On 23 Jan 2008, at 18:27, Albert Cardona wrote:
> ImageJ's Plugins - Utilities Benchmark on the Mandril sample image
> (RGB 512x512):
>
> (Best of 3 runs, ImageJ freshly restarted)
>
>
> MacOSX 10.4 java 1.6.0-beta 32-bit on a powerpc G5 2.0 Ghz 1.5 Gb
> SDRAM: 22.8 seconds
>
>
> Ubuntu 7.10 java 1.6.0 64-bit on an intel core 2 quad 2.4 Ghz 4 Gb
> DDR3: 0.741 seconds
>
>
> Ubuntu 7.04 java 1.6.0 32-bit on an intel core 2 duo 2.2 Ghz 2 GB
> DDR2: 0.802 seconds
>
>
>
> The difference is staggering. That G5 is about 2 years old only.
>
> I would appreciate if people posts benchmarks on their machines,
> to get an idea on what is ImageJ (and TrakEM2) going to be run on.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Albert
>
> --
> Albert Cardona
>
http://www.mcdb.ucla.edu/Research/Hartenstein/acardona______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit
http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________