Re: [R] naive question

From: Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard_at_biostat.ku.dk>
Date: Thu 01 Jul 2004 - 04:31:20 EST

<rivin@euclid.math.temple.edu> writes:

> I did not use R ten years ago, but "reasonable" RAM amounts have
> multiplied by roughly a factor of 10 (from 128Mb to 1Gb), CPU speeds have
> gone up by a factor of 30 (from 90Mhz to 3Ghz), and disk space availabilty
> has gone up probably by a factor of 10. So, unless the I/O performance
> scales nonlinearly with size (a bit strange but not inconsistent with my R
> experiments), I would think that things should have gotten faster (by the
> wall clock, not slower). Of course, it is possible that the other
> components of the R system have been worked on more -- I am not equipped
> to comment...

I think your RAM calculation is a bit off. in late 1993, 4MB systems were the standard PC, with 16 or 32 MB on high-end workstations. Comparable figures today are probably 256MB for the entry-level PC and a couple GB in the high end. So that's more like a factor of 64. On the other hand, CPU's have changed by more than the clock speed; in particular, the number of clock cycles per FP calculation has decreased considerably and is currently less than one in some circumstances.

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907

______________________________________________
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Received on Thu Jul 01 04:36:26 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri 18 Mar 2005 - 08:11:06 EST