From: Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard_at_biostat.ku.dk>

Date: Thu 01 Jul 2004 - 04:31:20 EST

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.htmlReceived 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
*