From help-octave-request at che dot utexas dot edu Tue Jan 31 10:28:05 1995 Subject: Re: Octave SLOW From: udina at upf dot es To: doron at mickey dot mpi-hd dot mpg dot de (Eyal Doron) Cc: help-octave at che dot utexas dot edu Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 17:26:01 +0100 (MET) :~> :~>Hi, :~> I am trying Octave 1.1.0, and it seems to be much slower than MATLAB. :~>I get longer running times on an Alpha with Octave than on a 33MHz :~>486 PC with Matlab. Any comments? :~> Well, at that moment I only can compare matlab 4.0 running in a HP-750 versus octave 1.1.0 running in a HP-735. This second machine is faster than the first because the clock speed. I estimate that there is a factor about 2 or 3 (it's a new machine at home!) < M A T L A B (tm) > Octave, version 1.1.0. Version 4.0 ... ... >> tic; inv(rand(50,50));toc octave:1> tic; inv(rand(50,50));toc elapsed_time = ans = 0.043408 0.0500 >> tic; inv(rand(100,100));toc octave:2> tic; inv(rand(100,100));toc elapsed_time = ans = 0.15567 0.2699 >> tic; inv(rand(150,150));toc octave:3> tic; inv(rand(150,150));toc elapsed_time = ans = 0.45370 0.7833 So it looks like Octave is slower in the overhead part but not in the numerical part (?) No conclusions from such a primitive and quick test might be drawn... Anyway, matlab is in his 4.0 version, and octave in 1.1!!! And it's free, matlab is horribly expensive for what you get. BTW: why octave says warning: tic: ignoring extra arguments warning: toc: ignoring extra arguments when I call tic? Frederic Udina _______________________________________________________________________ | voice: 34 - 3 - 542 17 56 Facultat de Ciencies Economiques | fax: 34 - 3 - 542 17 46 Universitat Pompeu Fabra | e-mail: udina at upf dot es Balmes 132 | appleLink: spa0172 08008 Barcelona | Servicom: sva00484 SPAIN | W W Web: http://libiya.upf.es/ ___________________________________/_\_________________________________