| Latency Comparison Numbers (~2012) | |
| ---------------------------------- | |
| L1 cache reference 0.5 ns | |
| Branch mispredict 5 ns | |
| L2 cache reference 7 ns 14x L1 cache | |
| Mutex lock/unlock 25 ns | |
| Main memory reference 100 ns 20x L2 cache, 200x L1 cache | |
| Compress 1K bytes with Zippy 3,000 ns 3 us | |
| Send 1K bytes over 1 Gbps network 10,000 ns 10 us | |
| Read 4K randomly from SSD* 150,000 ns 150 us ~1GB/sec SSD | |
| Read 1 MB sequentially from memory 250,000 ns 250 us | |
| Round trip within same datacenter 500,000 ns 500 us | |
| Read 1 MB sequentially from SSD* 1,000,000 ns 1,000 us 1 ms ~1GB/sec SSD, 4X memory | |
| Disk seek 10,000,000 ns 10,000 us 10 ms 20x datacenter roundtrip | |
| Read 1 MB sequentially from disk 20,000,000 ns 20,000 us 20 ms 80x memory, 20X SSD | |
| Send packet CA->Netherlands->CA 150,000,000 ns 150,000 us 150 ms | |
| Notes | |
| ----- | |
| 1 ns = 10^-9 seconds | |
| 1 us = 10^-6 seconds = 1,000 ns | |
| 1 ms = 10^-3 seconds = 1,000 us = 1,000,000 ns | |
| Credit | |
| ------ | |
| By Jeff Dean: http://research.google.com/people/jeff/ | |
| Originally by Peter Norvig: http://norvig.com/21-days.html#answers | |
| Contributions | |
| ------------- | |
| 'Humanized' comparison: https://gist.github.com/hellerbarde/2843375 | |
| Visual comparison chart: http://i.imgur.com/k0t1e.png |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
dominictarr
commented
May 31, 2012
|
need a solar system type visualization for this, so we can really appreciate the change of scale. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
|
I agree, would be fun to see. :-) |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
pmanvi
commented
May 31, 2012
|
useful information & thanks |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
marianposaceanu
May 31, 2012
Looks nice kudos !
One comment about the Branch mispredict: if the cpu architecture is based on P4 or Bulldozer that would result in 20-30+ cycles on a mispredict that would translate to a much bigger number (and they do mispredict) :)
For SSD's would be something like:
Disk seek: 100 000 ns
marianposaceanu
commented
May 31, 2012
|
Looks nice kudos ! For SSD's would be something like: |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
preinheimer
commented
May 31, 2012
|
Latency numbers between large cities: https://wondernetwork.com/pings/ |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
alexismo
commented
May 31, 2012
|
@preinheimer Asia & Australasia have it bad. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
gandalfar
commented
May 31, 2012
|
From the same author: http://videolectures.net/wsdm09_dean_cblirs/ |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
Eronarn
May 31, 2012
"Latency numbers every programmer should know" - yet naturally, it has no information about humans!
Eronarn
commented
May 31, 2012
|
"Latency numbers every programmer should know" - yet naturally, it has no information about humans! |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
hellerbarde
May 31, 2012
maybe you want to incorporate some of this: https://gist.github.com/2843375
hellerbarde
commented
May 31, 2012
|
maybe you want to incorporate some of this: https://gist.github.com/2843375 |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
christopherscott
commented
May 31, 2012
|
Curious to see numbers for SSD read time |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
klochner
May 31, 2012
I think the reference you want to cite is here: http://norvig.com/21-days.html#answers
klochner
commented
May 31, 2012
|
I think the reference you want to cite is here: http://norvig.com/21-days.html#answers |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
lucasces
May 31, 2012
This remind me of this Grace Hopper's video about Nanoseconds. Really worthy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEpsKnWZrJ8
lucasces
commented
May 31, 2012
|
This remind me of this Grace Hopper's video about Nanoseconds. Really worthy. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
mikea
May 31, 2012
I find comparisons much more useful than raw numbers: https://gist.github.com/2844130
mikea
commented
May 31, 2012
|
I find comparisons much more useful than raw numbers: https://gist.github.com/2844130 |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
briangordon
May 31, 2012
I'm surprised that mechanical disk reads are only 80x the speed of main memory reads.
briangordon
commented
May 31, 2012
|
I'm surprised that mechanical disk reads are only 80x the speed of main memory reads. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
marianposaceanu
May 31, 2012
my version : https://gist.github.com/2842457 includes SSD number, would love some more
marianposaceanu
commented
May 31, 2012
|
my version : https://gist.github.com/2842457 includes SSD number, would love some more |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
newphoenix
May 31, 2012
Does L1 and L2 cache latency depends on processor type? and what about L3 cache.
newphoenix
commented
May 31, 2012
|
Does L1 and L2 cache latency depends on processor type? and what about L3 cache. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
marianposaceanu
commented
May 31, 2012
|
Ofc it does ... those are averages I think. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
cayblood
May 31, 2012
Would be nice to right-align the numbers so people can more easily compare orders of magnitude.
cayblood
commented
May 31, 2012
|
Would be nice to right-align the numbers so people can more easily compare orders of magnitude. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
|
Good idea. Fixed. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
jhclark
May 31, 2012
And expanded even a bit more: https://gist.github.com/2845836 (SSD numbers, relative comparisons, more links)
jhclark
commented
May 31, 2012
|
And expanded even a bit more: https://gist.github.com/2845836 (SSD numbers, relative comparisons, more links) |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
nicowilliams
May 31, 2012
TLB misses would be nice to list too, so people see the value of large pages...
Context switches (for various OSes), ...
Also, regarding packet sends, that must be latency from send initiation to send completion -- I assume.
If you're going to list mutex lock/unlock, how about memory barriers?
Thanks! This is quite useful, particularly for flogging at others.
nicowilliams
commented
May 31, 2012
|
TLB misses would be nice to list too, so people see the value of large pages... Context switches (for various OSes), ... Also, regarding packet sends, that must be latency from send initiation to send completion -- I assume. If you're going to list mutex lock/unlock, how about memory barriers? Thanks! This is quite useful, particularly for flogging at others. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
lry
commented
Jun 1, 2012
|
Quick pie chart of data with scales in time (1 sec -> 9.5 years) for fun. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
vickychijwani
Jun 1, 2012
"Read 1 MB sequentially from disk - 20,000,000 ns". Is this with or without disk seek time?
vickychijwani
commented
Jun 1, 2012
|
"Read 1 MB sequentially from disk - 20,000,000 ns". Is this with or without disk seek time? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
pgroth
Jun 1, 2012
I made a fusion table for this at:
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?snapid=S523155yioc
Maybe be helpful for graphing, etc. Thanks for putting this together
pgroth
commented
Jun 1, 2012
|
I made a fusion table for this at: Maybe be helpful for graphing, etc. Thanks for putting this together |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
|
Cool. Thanks. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
ayshen
Jun 1, 2012
Here is a chart version. It's a bit hard to read, but I hope it conveys the perspective.
http://i.imgur.com/k0t1e.png
ayshen
commented
Jun 1, 2012
|
Here is a chart version. It's a bit hard to read, but I hope it conveys the perspective. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
gchatelet
Jun 2, 2012
It would also be very interesting to add memory allocation timings to that : )
gchatelet
commented
Jun 2, 2012
|
It would also be very interesting to add memory allocation timings to that : ) |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
PerWiklander
commented
Jun 5, 2012
|
How long does it take before this shows up in XKCD? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
talltyler
commented
Jun 5, 2012
|
You guys are talking about is the powers of ten http://vimeo.com/819138 |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
BillKress
Jun 5, 2012
If it does show up on xkcd it will be next to a gigantic "How much time it takes for a human to react to any results", hopefully with the intent to show people that any USE of this knowledge should be tempered with an understanding of what it will be used for--possibly showing how getting a bit from the cache is pretty much identical to getting a bit from china when it comes to a single fetch of information to show a human being.
BillKress
commented
Jun 5, 2012
|
If it does show up on xkcd it will be next to a gigantic "How much time it takes for a human to react to any results", hopefully with the intent to show people that any USE of this knowledge should be tempered with an understanding of what it will be used for--possibly showing how getting a bit from the cache is pretty much identical to getting a bit from china when it comes to a single fetch of information to show a human being. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
hellerbarde
Jun 5, 2012
@BillKress yes, this is specifically for Programmers, to make sure they have an understanding about the bottlenecks involved in programming. If you know these numbers, you know that you need to cut down on disk access before cutting down on in-memory shuffling.
If you don't properly follow these numbers and what they stand for, you will make programs that don't scale well. That is why they are important on their own and (in this context) should not be dwarfed by human reaction times.
hellerbarde
commented
Jun 5, 2012
|
@BillKress yes, this is specifically for Programmers, to make sure they have an understanding about the bottlenecks involved in programming. If you know these numbers, you know that you need to cut down on disk access before cutting down on in-memory shuffling. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
PerWiklander
Jun 5, 2012
@BillKress If we were only concerned with showing information to a single human being at a time we could just as well shut down our development machines and go out into the sun and play. This is about scalability.
PerWiklander
commented
Jun 5, 2012
|
@BillKress If we were only concerned with showing information to a single human being at a time we could just as well shut down our development machines and go out into the sun and play. This is about scalability. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
klochner
commented
Jun 5, 2012
|
this is getting out of hand, how do i unsubscribe from this gist? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
gemclass
Jun 7, 2012
Saw this via @smashingmag . While you guys debate the fit for purpose, here is another visualization of your quick reference latency data with Prezi ow.ly/bnB7q
gemclass
commented
Jun 7, 2012
|
Saw this via @smashingmag . While you guys debate the fit for purpose, here is another visualization of your quick reference latency data with Prezi ow.ly/bnB7q |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
briangordon
Jul 3, 2012
Does anybody know how to stop receiving notifications from a gist's activity?
briangordon
commented
Jul 3, 2012
|
Does anybody know how to stop receiving notifications from a gist's activity? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
colin-scott
Dec 25, 2012
Here's a tool to visualize these numbers over time: http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~rcs/research/interactive_latency.html
colin-scott
commented
Dec 25, 2012
|
Here's a tool to visualize these numbers over time: http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~rcs/research/interactive_latency.html |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
JensRantil
Jan 6, 2013
I just created flash cards for this: https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/3116110484 They can be downloaded using the Anki application: http://ankisrs.net
JensRantil
commented
Jan 6, 2013
|
I just created flash cards for this: https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/3116110484 They can be downloaded using the Anki application: http://ankisrs.net |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
JensRantil
Jan 14, 2013
I'm also missing something like "Send 1MB bytes over 1 Gbps network (within datacenter over TCP)". Or does that vary so much that it would be impossible to specify?
JensRantil
commented
Jan 14, 2013
|
I'm also missing something like "Send 1MB bytes over 1 Gbps network (within datacenter over TCP)". Or does that vary so much that it would be impossible to specify? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
kofemann
Feb 9, 2013
If L1 access is a second, then:
L1 cache reference : 0:00:01
Branch mispredict : 0:00:10
L2 cache reference : 0:00:14
Mutex lock/unlock : 0:00:50
Main memory reference : 0:03:20
Compress 1K bytes with Zippy : 1:40:00
Send 1K bytes over 1 Gbps network : 5:33:20
Read 4K randomly from SSD : 3 days, 11:20:00
Read 1 MB sequentially from memory : 5 days, 18:53:20
Round trip within same datacenter : 11 days, 13:46:40
Read 1 MB sequentially from SSD : 23 days, 3:33:20
Disk seek : 231 days, 11:33:20
Read 1 MB sequentially from disk : 462 days, 23:06:40
Send packet CA->Netherlands->CA : 3472 days, 5:20:00
kofemann
commented
Feb 9, 2013
|
If L1 access is a second, then: L1 cache reference : 0:00:01 |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
kofemann
commented
Feb 9, 2013
|
You can add LTO4 tape seek/access time, ~ 55 sec, or 55.000.000.000 ns |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
metakeule
Jul 29, 2013
I'm missing things like sending 1K via Unix pipe/ socket / tcp to another process.
Has anybody numbers about that?
metakeule
commented
Jul 29, 2013
|
I'm missing things like sending 1K via Unix pipe/ socket / tcp to another process. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
shiplunc
commented
Nov 27, 2013
|
@metakeule its easily measurable. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
mnem
Jan 9, 2014
Related page from "Systems Performance" with similar second scaling mentioned by @kofemann: https://twitter.com/rzezeski/status/398306728263315456/photo/1
mnem
commented
Jan 9, 2014
|
Related page from "Systems Performance" with similar second scaling mentioned by @kofemann: https://twitter.com/rzezeski/status/398306728263315456/photo/1 |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
izard
May 29, 2014
L1D hit on a modern Intel CPU (Nehalem+) is at least 4 cycles. For a typical server/desktop at 2.5Ghz it is at least 1.6ns.
Fastest L2 hit latency is 11 cycles(Sandy Bridge+) which is 2.75x not 14x.
May be the numbers by Norwig were true at some time, but at least caches latency numbers are pretty constant since Nehalem which was 6 years ago.
izard
commented
May 29, 2014
|
L1D hit on a modern Intel CPU (Nehalem+) is at least 4 cycles. For a typical server/desktop at 2.5Ghz it is at least 1.6ns. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
richa03
Aug 21, 2014
Please note that Peter Norvig first published this expanded version (at that location - http://norvig.com/21-days.html#answers) ~JUL2010 (see wayback machine). Also, note that it was "Approximate timing for various operations on a typical PC".
richa03
commented
Aug 21, 2014
|
Please note that Peter Norvig first published this expanded version (at that location - http://norvig.com/21-days.html#answers) ~JUL2010 (see wayback machine). Also, note that it was "Approximate timing for various operations on a typical PC". |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
pdjonov
Oct 3, 2014
One light-nanosecond is roughly a foot, which is considerably less than the distance to my monitor right now. It's kind of surprising to realize just how much a CPU can get done in the time it takes light to traverse the average viewing distance...
pdjonov
commented
Oct 3, 2014
|
One light-nanosecond is roughly a foot, which is considerably less than the distance to my monitor right now. It's kind of surprising to realize just how much a CPU can get done in the time it takes light to traverse the average viewing distance... |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
junhe
Jan 16, 2015
@jboner, I would like to cite some numbers in a formal publication. Who is the author? Jeff Dean? Which url should I cite? Thanks.
junhe
commented
Jan 16, 2015
|
@jboner, I would like to cite some numbers in a formal publication. Who is the author? Jeff Dean? Which url should I cite? Thanks. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
weidagang
commented
Jan 26, 2015
|
I'd like to see the number for "Append 1 MB to file on disk". |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
dhartford
Mar 11, 2015
The "Send 1K bytes over 1 Gbps network" doesn't feel right, if you were comparing the 1MB sequential read of memory, SSD, Disk, the Gbps network for 1MB would be faster than disk (x1024), that doesn't feel right.
dhartford
commented
Mar 11, 2015
|
The "Send 1K bytes over 1 Gbps network" doesn't feel right, if you were comparing the 1MB sequential read of memory, SSD, Disk, the Gbps network for 1MB would be faster than disk (x1024), that doesn't feel right. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
leotm
May 2, 2015
A great solar system type visualisation: http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html
leotm
commented
May 2, 2015
|
A great solar system type visualisation: http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
ali
commented
Sep 14, 2015
|
I turned this into a set of flashcards on Quizlet: https://quizlet.com/_1iqyko |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
misgeatgit
Dec 11, 2015
Can you update the the Notes section with the following
1 ns = 10^-9 seconds
1 ms = 10^-3 seconds
Thanks.
misgeatgit
commented
Dec 11, 2015
|
Can you update the the Notes section with the following Thanks. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
|
@misgeatgit Updated |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
juhovuori
commented
Dec 25, 2015
|
Zippy is nowadays called snappy. Might be worth updating. Tx for the gist. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
georgevreilly
Jan 10, 2016
Several of the recent comments are spam. The links lead to sites in India which have absolutely nothing to do with latency.
georgevreilly
commented
Jan 10, 2016
|
Several of the recent comments are spam. The links lead to sites in India which have absolutely nothing to do with latency. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
wenjianhn
commented
Jan 12, 2016
|
Are there any numbers about latency between NUMA nodes? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
vitaut
Jan 31, 2016
Sequential SSD speed is actually more like 500 MB/s, not 1000 MB/s for SATA drives (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-recommendation-benchmark,3269.html).
vitaut
commented
Jan 31, 2016
|
Sequential SSD speed is actually more like 500 MB/s, not 1000 MB/s for SATA drives (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-recommendation-benchmark,3269.html). |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
BruceGooch
Mar 9, 2016
You really should cite the folks at Berkeley. Their site is interactive, has been up for 20 years, and it is where you "sourced" your visualization. http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~rcs/research/interactive_latency.html
BruceGooch
commented
Mar 9, 2016
|
You really should cite the folks at Berkeley. Their site is interactive, has been up for 20 years, and it is where you "sourced" your visualization. http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~rcs/research/interactive_latency.html |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
aerovistae
Mar 10, 2016
Question~ do these numbers not vary from one set of hardware to the next? How can these be accurate for all different types of RAM, CPU, motherboard, hard drive, etc?
(I am primarily a front-end JS dev, I know little-to-nothing about this side of programming, where one must consider numbers involving RAM and CPU. Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious.)
aerovistae
commented
Mar 10, 2016
|
Question~ do these numbers not vary from one set of hardware to the next? How can these be accurate for all different types of RAM, CPU, motherboard, hard drive, etc? (I am primarily a front-end JS dev, I know little-to-nothing about this side of programming, where one must consider numbers involving RAM and CPU. Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious.) |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
jlleblanc
Mar 21, 2016
The link to the animated presentation is broken, here's the correct one: http://prezi.com/pdkvgys-r0y6/latency-numbers-for-programmers-web-development
jlleblanc
commented
Mar 21, 2016
|
The link to the animated presentation is broken, here's the correct one: http://prezi.com/pdkvgys-r0y6/latency-numbers-for-programmers-web-development |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
keenkit
commented
Aug 15, 2016
|
Love this one. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
profuel
Oct 5, 2016
Mentioned gist : https://gist.github.com/2843375 is private or was removed.
can someone restore it?
Thanks!
profuel
commented
Oct 5, 2016
|
Mentioned |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
trans
Oct 9, 2016
It would be nice to be able to compare this to computation times -- How long to do an add, xor, multiply, or branch operation?
trans
commented
Oct 9, 2016
|
It would be nice to be able to compare this to computation times -- How long to do an add, xor, multiply, or branch operation? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
mpron
Oct 12, 2016
Last year, I came up with this concept for an infographic illustrating these latency numbers with time analogies (if 1 CPU cycle = 1 second). Here was the result: http://imgur.com/8LIwV4C
mpron
commented
Oct 12, 2016
•
|
Last year, I came up with this concept for an infographic illustrating these latency numbers with time analogies (if 1 CPU cycle = 1 second). Here was the result: http://imgur.com/8LIwV4C |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
pawel-dubiel
Jan 29, 2017
Most of these number were valid in 2000-2001, right now some of these numbers are wrong by an order of magnitude. ( especially reading from main memory, as DRAM bandwidth doubles every 3 years )
pawel-dubiel
commented
Jan 29, 2017
•
|
Most of these number were valid in 2000-2001, right now some of these numbers are wrong by an order of magnitude. ( especially reading from main memory, as DRAM bandwidth doubles every 3 years ) |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
maranomynet
commented
Jan 31, 2017
|
|
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
GLMeece
Jan 31, 2017
I realize this was published some time ago, but the following URLs are no longer reachable/valid:
- https://gist.github.com/2843375
- http://prezi.com/pdkvgys-r0y6/latency-numbers-for-programmers-web-development/latency.txt
However, the second URL should now be: https://prezi.com/pdkvgys-r0y6/latency-numbers-for-programmers-web-development/
Oh, and @mpron - nice!
GLMeece
commented
Jan 31, 2017
•
|
I realize this was published some time ago, but the following URLs are no longer reachable/valid:
However, the second URL should now be: https://prezi.com/pdkvgys-r0y6/latency-numbers-for-programmers-web-development/ Oh, and @mpron - nice! |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
JustinNazari
commented
Jan 31, 2017
|
Thank you @jboner |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
GLMeece
commented
Jan 31, 2017
|
Note: I created my own "fork" of this. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
ValerieAnne563
commented
May 2, 2017
|
Thank you @GLMeece |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
orestotel
commented
Jun 11, 2017
|
Google it |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
knbknb
Jun 24, 2017
Median human reaction time (to some stimulus showing up on a screen): 270 ms
(value probably increases with age)
https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/statistics
knbknb
commented
Jun 24, 2017
•
|
Median human reaction time (to some stimulus showing up on a screen): 270 ms |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
SonalJha
commented
Aug 15, 2017
|
Awesome info. Thanks! |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
keynan
commented
Sep 22, 2017
•
|
Could you please add printf & fprintf to this list |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
awilkins
Oct 13, 2017
Heh, imagine this transposed into human distances.
1ns = 1 step, or 2 feet.
L1 cache reference = reaching 1 foot across your desk to pick something up
Datacentre roundtrip = 94 mile hike.
Internet roundtrip (California to Netherlands) = Walk around the entire earth. Wait! You're not done. Then walk from London, to Havana. Oh, and then to Jacksonville, Florida. Then you're done.
awilkins
commented
Oct 13, 2017
|
Heh, imagine this transposed into human distances. 1ns = 1 step, or 2 feet. L1 cache reference = reaching 1 foot across your desk to pick something up |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
benirule
commented
Oct 23, 2017
|
The last link is giving a 404 |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
ahartmetz
Nov 16, 2017
The numbers "Read 1 MB sequentially from memory" mean a memory bandwidth of 4 GB/s. That is a very old number. Can you update it? The time should be roughly 1/5th - one core can do about 20 GB/s today, all cores of a 4 or 8 core about 40 GB/s together. I remember seeing 18-19 GB/s in memtest86 for single core on my Ryzen 1800X and there are several benchmarks floating around where all cores do about 40 GB/s. It is very hard to find anything on the web about single core memory bandwidth...
ahartmetz
commented
Nov 16, 2017
|
The numbers "Read 1 MB sequentially from memory" mean a memory bandwidth of 4 GB/s. That is a very old number. Can you update it? The time should be roughly 1/5th - one core can do about 20 GB/s today, all cores of a 4 or 8 core about 40 GB/s together. I remember seeing 18-19 GB/s in memtest86 for single core on my Ryzen 1800X and there are several benchmarks floating around where all cores do about 40 GB/s. It is very hard to find anything on the web about single core memory bandwidth... |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
jamalahmedmaaz
commented
Jan 25, 2018
|
Good information, thanks. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
ryazo
Jan 28, 2018
http://ram.userbenchmark.com/
Ram has gotten slightly faster. It is 70 ns now.
Edit: I was wrong. https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/03/01/reducing-memory-access-times-with-caches/
ryazo
commented
Jan 28, 2018
•
|
http://ram.userbenchmark.com/ Edit: I was wrong. https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/03/01/reducing-memory-access-times-with-caches/ |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
ldavide
commented
Feb 14, 2018
|
there is an updated version of the latency table? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
rcosnita
commented
Mar 21, 2018
|
Nice gist. Thanks @jboner. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
connecttobn
Mar 30, 2018
Links are dead..
https://gist.github.com/2843375
http://prezi.com/pdkvgys-r0y6/latency-numbers-for-programmers-web-development/latency.txt
@jboner lets remove them
connecttobn
commented
Mar 30, 2018
|
Links are dead.. https://gist.github.com/2843375 @jboner lets remove them |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
calimeroteknik
Apr 9, 2018
https://prezi.com/pdkvgys-r0y6/latency-numbers-for-programmers-web-development/
This prezi presentation is reversed: the larger numbers are inside the smaller ones, instead of the logical opposite.
calimeroteknik
commented
Apr 9, 2018
•
This prezi presentation is reversed: the larger numbers are inside the smaller ones, instead of the logical opposite. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
achiang
commented
Apr 17, 2018
|
Humanized version can be found: https://gist.github.com/hellerbarde/2843375 |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
|
Thanks. Updated. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
amirouche
commented
Apr 28, 2018
|
Where is the xkcd version? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
amirouche
commented
Apr 28, 2018
|
This one is nice https://gist.github.com/hellerbarde/2843375#gistcomment-1896153 |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
negrinho
Jul 17, 2018
Just use logarithms directly: https://gist.github.com/negrinho/8a8b45a8958a8653054aa2b349b4cb05
negrinho
commented
Jul 17, 2018
|
Just use logarithms directly: https://gist.github.com/negrinho/8a8b45a8958a8653054aa2b349b4cb05 |
need a solar system type visualization for this, so we can really appreciate the change of scale.