Compare the performance of Lisp SBCL programs against some other language implementation, or check the Lisp CPU time and Memory use measurements.
For more information about the Lisp implementation we measured see ↓ about Lisp SBCL.
Are the Lisp SBCL programs better?
For each of one our benchmarks, a white bar shows which language implementation had the faster program, and a black bar shows which used the least memory.
How many times better?
How many times faster or smaller are the Lisp SBCL programs than the corresponding Java 6 -server programs?
| Lisp SBCL x times better ~ Java 6 -server x times better | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program & Logs | Faster | Smaller: Memory Use | Smaller: GZip Bytes | Reduced N |
| binary-trees | 1.7 | ~1.5 | 1.1 | |
| chameneos-redux | ||||
| fannkuch | 1.5 | ~2.0 | ~1.1 | |
| fasta | ~1.7 | ~1.7 | ~1.1 | |
| k-nucleotide | ~1.3 | 1.2 | ~1.4 | |
| mandelbrot | ~1.8 | ~1.7 | 1.0 | |
| meteor-contest | ||||
| n-body | ~1.5 | ~1.5 | 1.0 | |
| nsieve | ~1.4 | ~2.6 | 1.3 | |
| nsieve-bits | ~1.5 | ~1.7 | 1.4 | |
| partial-sums | 2.1 | ~2.0 | ~1.1 | |
| pidigits | ~3.0 | ~3.3 | 1.5 | |
| recursive | ~1.4 | ~1.6 | ~1.2 | |
| regex-dna | ~1.1 | ~3.7 | 1.2 | |
| reverse-complement | 2.0 | 1.6 | ~1.0 | |
| spectral-norm | ~1.0 | ~1.7 | ~1.2 | |
| startup | ~1.2 | 1.8 | ||
| sum-file | ~2.2 | ~2.5 | 1.4 | |
| thread-ring | ||||
about Lisp SBCL
online book Practical Common Lisp
This is SBCL 1.0.12-gentoo, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp.
Home Page: http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/
Download: http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/
