<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Hi, I confirm that Scilab 6.0.0 it's a bit slower than 5.5.2. It's the time spent in the benchmark.</div><div><br></div><div>5.5.2</div><div> 7.151 </div><div> 7.127 </div><div> 7.123 </div><div> 7.158 </div><div> 7.169 </div><div> 7.117 <a href="file:///tmp/test-5.5.2.csv"></a></div><div> 7.154 </div><div> 7.209 </div><div> 7.117 </div><div> 7.107</div><div><br></div><div>6.0.0</div><div> 8.97989</div><div> 8.965782</div><div> 8.998687</div><div> 9.013485</div><div> 9.241977</div><div> 9.100208</div><div> 9.057786</div><div> 9.00625</div><div> 8.963514</div><div> 9.205469</div><div> </div><div>I have attached some information about my CPU in this message.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Amanda Osvaldo</div><div><br></div><div>On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 03:32 -0700, kjubo wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre>Dear all,
I observed a performance decrease with relatively simple code that use a for
cycles.
bench_1.sci <<a href="http://mailinglists.scilab.org/file/n4036150/bench_1.sci">http://mailinglists.scilab.org/file/n4036150/bench_1.sci</a>>
Almost everybody is reporting massive speed up in for cycles, but in my case
it is opposite.
In 5.2.2 run time is 10 seconds, while in 6.0.0 is 18 seconds.
Both Scilab versions are 64 bit, Win 7 64 bit.
Can somebody confirm my results?
Thanks in advance.
BR
J.K.
--
View this message in context: <a href="http://mailinglists.scilab.org/Scilab-6-0-0-vs-5-2-2-performance-decrease-tp4036150.html">http://mailinglists.scilab.org/Scilab-6-0-0-vs-5-2-2-performance-decrease-tp4036150.html</a>
Sent from the Scilab users - Mailing Lists Archives mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
<a href="mailto:users@lists.scilab.org">users@lists.scilab.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users">http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users</a>
</pre></blockquote></body></html>