> Some were pretty much equivalent in performance to Intel (slightly slower, but rather better > (very much numerics biased, not much testing of symbolics) and found results tended to be of three types. > I ran through one after another of the benchmarks in the Mathematica Benchmark suite, which is not ideal > a Mac Pro with quadcore i7 at, I think, 3.6GHz or so and 16GiB. > if the OS had to engage in a lot of page compression/decompression) against > This was comparing an A10X at 2.35GHz and with 4GiB of RAM (this may be significant > that can be interpreted as meaning pretty much anything you might like. > Even so, one can learn some interesting things in just a few hours, with results > to step your way trying each thing at a time and feeling out how large a problem can grow before it dies. > This is turn means that it's difficult to create a reasonable pool of items to test all at once, you have > the UI doesn't tell you what's happened, but the calculation is never going to complete. > thing?) that any calculation that takes longer than around 5 seconds goes into some sort of neverland where > iPad), secondly Wolfram have made the decision (for whatever reason? or it's a bug? or it's an iOS power-saving > of Manipulate, and every change requires a cycle of save on the Mac, delete on the iPad, reload on the > is firstly not an editable environment (you have to wrap everything you want to be timed inside some sort > It's a substantial hassle to do serious benchmarking comparisons between the devices because the Player Well the Player has been released and I've spent a few hours playing with it. > and that it would be an interesting performance comparison against x86 of a "serious" I mentioned some weeks ago that Wolfram was going to ship a Mathematica Player for iPad,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |