Talk:Rare numbers: Difference between revisions
→21+ digit rare numbers: Responded to Nigel.
(→21+ digit rare numbers: Compare C++ and goTurbo) |
(→21+ digit rare numbers: Responded to Nigel.) |
||
Line 628:
I think this demonstrates that the task should require at least the first 63 Rare numbers!!!
--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 12:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
::::LOL, the Go version is even faster on your i5 than it is on my i7, and only about 50% behind mingw! I imagine you're running it on Windows 10 whereas I'm using Ubuntu 18.04 but that shouldn't make much difference. Probably should have bought an i7 with a higher basic clock speed as performance can be a bit disappointing at times.
::::The stretch goal is already open-ended and Enter your username has certainly gone well beyond the call of duty there :) --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 14:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
::::: I find it hard to believe that clang++ could be 3 times faster than g++ (though you can get some strange results with these CPU-intensive tasks) and, although I no longer have an up to date Windows machine, on past form I'd be surprised if Visual C++ were any faster than g++ itself. Enter your username may be able to confirm the position there. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 20:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
| |||