<< Back to the The Java is Faster than C++ and C++ Sucks Unbiased Benchmark
| Times (smaller is better) | ||||
(The "winner" of each benchmark is highlighted in green; |
||||
| G++ 3.3.1 | Java 1.4.2 | |||
| Intel 386 | Intel 686 | Server JVM | Client JVM | |
| Ackermann | 60.95 | 39.03 | 34.53 | N/A* |
| Fibonacci | 49.41 | 43.13 | 33.12 | 49.78 |
| Hash2 | 21.11 | 21.62 | 9.96 | 14.56 |
| Hash | 16.43 | 16.51 | 7.93 | 86.76 |
| Heapsort | 20.04 | 19.63 | 21.59 | 20.47 |
| Matrix | 10.58 | 10.76 | 14.95 | 30.55 |
| Method call | 24 | 20.49 | 2.47 | 39.18 |
| Nested loop | 12.63 | 15.08 | 23.42 | 32.57 |
| Object creation | 24.88 | 23.47 | 6.4 | 7.17 |
| Random no. gen. | 21.29 | 15.12 | 29.99 | 57.08 |
| Sieve | 16.54 | 16.53 | 15.08 | 16.66 |
| String concatenation | 2.49 | 1.79 | 2.6 | 2.99 |
| Sumcol | 9.11 | 8.51 | 6.69 | 12.75 |
| Word count | 4.37 | 4.27 | 3.02 | 3.89 |
| Performance rating (bigger is better) (see graph) |
||||
| G++ 3.3.1 | Java 1.4.2 | |||
| Intel 386 | Intel 686 | Server JVM | Client JVM | |
| Ackermann | 73% | 114% | 129% | N/A* |
| Fibonacci | 88% | 101% | 132% | 88% |
| Hash2 | 79% | 77% | 168% | 115% |
| Hash | 194% | 193% | 402% | 36% |
| Heapsort | 101% | 104% | 94% | 99% |
| Matrix | 157% | 155% | 111% | 54% |
| Method call | 89% | 105% | 871% | 54% |
| Nested loop | 165% | 138% | 89% | 64% |
| Object creation | 62% | 65% | 241% | 215% |
| Random no. gen. | 145% | 204% | 102% | 54% |
| Sieve | 97% | 98% | 107% | 97% |
| String concatenation | 99% | 137% | 94% | 82% |
| Sumcol | 101% | 108% | 138% | 72% |
| Word count | 88% | 91% | 128% | 99% |
*The Client JVM could not run the Ackermann test without producing a StackOverflowError.