Tamarin Benchmarks Part 3

Here's another benchmark of a simple for loop. The benchmark used is:

var j = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
And here are the results:
Tamarin-Tracing Single Interpreter - Compiler on
time ./avmplus ~/Projects/tamarin-central/test/custom/forLoop.abc

real 0m13.121s
user 0m13.064s
sys 0m0.056s

Tamarin-Tracing Single Interpreter - Compiler off
time ./avmplus -interp ~/Projects/tamarin-central/test/custom/forLoop.abc

real 1m33.280s
user 1m33.060s
sys 0m0.195s

Tamarin-Tracing Double Interpreter - Compiler on
time ./avmplus ~/Projects/tamarin-central/test/custom/forLoop.abc

real 0m12.467s
user 0m12.441s
sys 0m0.025s

Tamarin Tracing Double Interpreter - Compiler off
time ./avmplus -interp ~/Projects/tamarin-central/test/custom/forLoop.abc

real 3m41.578s
user 3m41.006s
sys 0m0.412s

Tamarin-Central - Compiler
time ./shell -Dforcemir ~/Projects/tamarin-central/test/custom/forLoop.abc

real 0m6.232s
user 0m6.224s
sys 0m0.007s

Tamarin-Central - Interpreter
time ./shell -Dinterp ~/Projects/tamarin-central/test/custom/forLoop.abc

real 0m36.891s
user 0m36.796s
sys 0m0.094s

SpiderMonkey 1.7
time js forLoop.js

real 0m6.789s
user 0m6.776s
sys 0m0.013s

SpiderMonkey 1.8
time ./js ~/Projects/tamarin-central/test/custom/forLoop.js

real 0m6.396s
user 0m6.385s
sys 0m0.011s

This doesn't bode too well for Tamarin....At least the new Interpreter is in general faster. Again, these benchmarks are not really comprehensive, but it is simply insight as to how Tamarin is shaping up against SpiderMonkey.

* Edit: forced tamarin-central to compile everything. Results updated.