[R-SIG-Mac] Nehalem performance [Was: Is R more heavy on memory or processor?]

[Simon Urbanek]

On Aug 27, 2009, at 11:16 , John C. Tull wrote:

> On Aug 27, 2009, at 7:36 AM, Simon Urbanek wrote:
>
>> The tests used are from http://r.research.att.com/benchmarks
>> (R 2.9.2 release was used but admittedly the OS version varied)
>> Clearly, benchmarks never tell the full story and there may be uses  
>> that take advantage of the one or another architecture, but the  
>> bottom line is that Nehalems are not universally faster, so don't  
>> throuw your Harpertowns out just yet ;).
>
> What was the memory configuration for these test systems? I would  
> expect any differences there could account for significant variation  
> as well.
>

Yes, you're right, but they are roughly comparable (Nehalem 12GB,  
Harpertown 2.8GHZ 10GB, Harpertown 2.66GHz 16GB). The test should not  
be reaching their limits - I was also running the 2.66 Harpertown with  
only 1GB of RAM with no big differences ...

Cheers,
Simon