09-23-2005 10:10 AM
09-23-2005 10:58 AM
09-23-2005 11:03 AM
Shane,
Take a look at the test vi I posted. It has a sample list of 100 numbers of increasing difficulty. It should give you a very good idea of what the final list will be like, because I will use the exact same program to generate a new list for the final test.
Bruce
09-23-2005 11:34 AM
09-27-2005 07:16 AM
09-27-2005 07:21 AM
Shane,
Go ahead and send me your vi, and I will do a time test on my computer. I already have tested Christian's, and after I have three I will start posting the top times on my machine. This will give everybody a uniform comparison of their results.
Bruce
09-27-2005 09:45 AM
09-27-2005 11:23 AM - edited 09-27-2005 11:23 AM
Shane,
We seems to program along the same lines 😉 My latest results show almost the same pattern.
I tuned a few things and was able to squeze another ~50% off my time (not yet submitted to bruce). Here's the latest, still on my ancient 1GHz PIII 512MB Laptop.
On an 1.8GHz Athlon XP 2500 1GB, the times are 9/3.5 seconds (first run/later runs) and on an 2.2GHz Dual CPU/Dual Core (=4xCores) Athlon 4GB 6/2.6 seconds (there is nothing optimized for paralell execution, so it probably mostly utilizes only one core). In my experience from earlier challenges, Athlons do better on these kind of computations than Intel machines on a per GHz basis, so it is possible that we are extremely similar. Only Bruce will be able to tell.
It might be intersting to develop an algoritm optimized for multiple processors. I could test them on the above dual/dual screamer for extra credit after the competition 😉
There is still some slack left in the code, maybe I'll look into it in a week or so.
Message Edited by altenbach on 09-27-2005 09:24 AM
09-27-2005 11:41 AM
09-27-2005 05:04 PM