Severi Salminen wrote:
> 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

  That's odd. I tested that and the isaac rng in identical conditions
(and compiled with g++ -O3 -march=prescott), and while the isaac rng was
able to generate 168 million numbers per second (with RANDSIZL=5), that
sfmt was only able to generate 81 million numbers per second. Still
considerably faster than std::rand(), but considerably slower than isaac.

  Maybe I didn't compile or use it right. OTOH, the isaac rng is that
fast without any special compiler fine-tuning, just a straightforward
optimized compilation.

> 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.

  OTOH, using the fastest possible (high-quality) rng doesn't hurt
either. :)

Post a reply to this message