Re: multicore-multithreading benchmarks

[tmoran@acm.org]

>We can note that with N= 10000, 8 CPUs are often slightly slower in
>Nyberg's; Alexander's; and my measurements (below) than 7 so-called
>"CPUs", though this is not nearly as dramatic as the erratic timings
  The timings are short and thus highly subject to other things going on.
Trysortn already does four runs and returns the average, but, especially
when the "noise" is bursty, the result is still very erratic.  The N=1000
case should probably be dropped since it's too fast for good timings, and
too small for a multitasking advantage.  Even N=10_000 is pretty small.
It would be interesting though to see the results for N=10**7 since that
ought to show some cache contention under multi-tasking.
  Thanks for posting the timings on your 4 core machine.  They seem
broadly in agreement on the value of additional CPUs/cores.