Performance (pystone) of python 2.4 lower then python 2.3 ???

[Lucas Hofman]

Nick Craig-Wood <nick <at> craig-wood.com> writes:

> 
> Peter Hansen <peter <at> engcorp.com> wrote:
> >  For comparison, I do get a decent speedup.  Machine is an
> >  AMD Athlon XP 2500+ (1.82GHz) running Win XP Pro SP2.
> > 
> >  Python 2.3.4: 36393 pystones.
> >  Python 2.4:   39400 pystones.
> > 
> >  ...about an 8% speedup.
> 
> On my 2.6 GHz P4 running debian testing I got the following results :-
> 
> $ for p in 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4; do echo $p; python$p pystone.py 1000000 ; done
> 
> 2.1
> Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 40.67
> This machine benchmarks at 24588.1 pystones/second
> 2.2
> Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 39.64
> This machine benchmarks at 25227 pystones/second
> 2.3
> Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 32.49
> This machine benchmarks at 30778.7 pystones/second
> 2.4
> Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 29.88
> This machine benchmarks at 33467.2 pystones/second
> 
> Showing that 2.4 is the fastest so far!  (And is also a good advert
> for AMD 
> 


I got this list on a single processor P4 1.6 Ghz:
2.1
Pystone(1.1) time for 100000 passes = 6.74
This machine benchmarks at 14836.8 pystones/second
2.2
Pystone(1.1) time for 100000 passes = 6.36
This machine benchmarks at 15723.3 pystones/second
2.3
Pystone(1.1) time for 100000 passes = 4.92
This machine benchmarks at 20325.2 pystones/second
2.4
Pystone(1.1) time for 100000 passes = 4.51
This machine benchmarks at 22172.9 pystones/second

Which shows the expected speedup.

On a dual Xeon 3.0 Ghz:
2.2
Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 37.45
This machine benchmarks at 26702.3 pystones/second
2.3
Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 25.28
This machine benchmarks at 39557 pystones/second
2.4
Pystone(1.1) time for 1000000 passes = 25.94
This machine benchmarks at 38550.5 pystones/second

Which shows a decrease in performance. Could this have anything to do with the
fact that is is a dual processor box?

Lucas