Speed on PB is slow ?!

[threedslider]

Hi

I make a simple for the loop to 1 000 000 000 and it is quite slow

See it by yourself

Here the code :

Code: Select all

Procedure.i Adder(i.i)
  ProcedureReturn i + 1
  
EndProcedure

i.i = 0
TimeStart = ElapsedMilliseconds() 
While i < 1000000000
  adder(i)
  
  i = i+1
Wend

Debug Str((ElapsedMilliseconds() - TimeStart)) + " milliseconds"

And time is here :

Code: Select all

147684 milliseconds

[mk-soft]

With Debugger

Code: Select all

Start ...
Done 48950 milliseconds

Without Debugger

Code: Select all

Start ...
Done 1881 milliseconds

Not Slow

Code: Select all

Procedure.i Adder(i.i)
  ProcedureReturn i + 1
  
EndProcedure

If OpenConsole()
  i.i = 0
  PrintN("Start ...")
  TimeStart = ElapsedMilliseconds() 
  While i < 1000000000
    adder(i)
    
    i = i+1
  Wend
  PrintN("Done " +Str((ElapsedMilliseconds() - TimeStart)) + " milliseconds")
  Input()
EndIf

[TI-994A]

I make a simple for the loop to 1 000 000 000 and it is quite slow

Such results are highly contingent on the hardware its running on.

[le_magn]

With Debugger

Code: Select all

Start ...
Done 48950 milliseconds

Without Debugger

Code: Select all

Start ...
Done 1881 milliseconds

Hi MK-SOFT, I’d like to ask which CPU you have. Without a debugger, I get 1400ms, but with a debugger, it takes twice your time, 85000ms, PB 6.21 32/64

UPDATE: I repeated the test with C Backend and now this is the result:

Code: Select all

With debugger:
22552ms

Code: Select all

without debugger:
0ms

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9950X3D

[NicTheQuick]

On my machine the code is done in 0 milliseconds. I guess the optimization is working fine.

Without optimization it is 1512 milliseconds.

So don't forget to enable optimizations in the compiler options.

[threedslider]

@mk-soft : Oh ok I see that xD, yes my without debugger is pretty fast

@TI-994A : true

@NicTheQuick : How you did that ??? Say me your tips please !!

[NicTheQuick]

@NicTheQuick : How you did that ??? Say me your tips please !!

You have to enable the compiler optimizations in the compiler options. And of course for that you have to use the C backend and not the ASM backend. The ASM backend has no future anyway in my opinion.

[AZJIO]

Windows 11 x64, PB 6.21 x64, AMD Ryzen 5 8500G OEM
92614 - ASM, with Debugger
1203 - ASM, without Debugger
32547 - C-Backend, with Debugger, without optimization
26440 - C-Backend, with Debugger, with optimization
1591 - C-Backend, without Debugger, without optimization
201 - C-Backend, without Debugger, with optimization

[Mindphazer]

On my Mac M4 :
Debugger on : 21749 ms
Debuger off without optimization : 1578 ms
Debugger off with optimization : 0 ms

On Mac Mx series, only C Backend is available

PB is slow, really ?

[BarryG]

3167 ms on my very old PC. This is running it as a compiled exe, built with the ASM backend with v6.10 of PureBasic.

[idle]

On my machine the code is done in 0 milliseconds. I guess the optimization is working fine.

Without optimization it is 1512 milliseconds.

So don't forget to enable optimizations in the compiler options.

C Optimizer removed the loop.

[threedslider]

@idle : Yeah it is possible

[threedslider]

PB is slow, really ?

I know now but only debugger is slow a bit ... Yeah otherwise PB is very fast

[NicTheQuick]

On my machine the code is done in 0 milliseconds. I guess the optimization is working fine.

Without optimization it is 1512 milliseconds.

So don't forget to enable optimizations in the compiler options.

C Optimizer removed the loop.

Exactly

[Lord]

Interesting:

If I use For/Next, the execution time ist just 50% with Debugger on.
C-Backend is selected and Optimization is enabled.
31106 ms to 69440 ms
Without Debugger: both 0 ms

Win11 x64, PB6.20 x64, i5-13400F