Warp wrote:

>> Do you know how it compares to Mersenne Twister speed-wise?
> 
>   Unfortunately I don't. However, I believe this RNG to be very fast,
> especially taking into account the high quality of the results.

Thanks for the code! Quick test shows that the two RNGs perform almost
identically. So I don't think I have a strong need to change the RNG.
Also the SFMT looks very promising:

http://www.math.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/~m-mat/MT/SFMT/index.html

It should be a lot faster than basic MT which I'm using. But most likely
the random number generation is not a bottleneck anymore.

Post a reply to this message