From: jcoffin AT taeus DOT com (Jerry Coffin) Newsgroups: alt.lang.asm,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.lang.asm.x86,alt.os.assembly Subject: Re: Benchmarking of NASM Date: 10 Jul 1999 13:40:35 GMT Organization: TAEUS Lines: 27 Approved: Message-ID: <7m7igj$1gv$11@autumn.news.rcn.net> References: <7m645n$f0a$1 AT autumn DOT news DOT rcn DOT net> X-Trace: 41EMUBSEbjwoXBaM1NqSFweUUf+J/ScX/BlNseB/ejE= X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rcn DOT com NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Jul 1999 13:40:35 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 X-Server-Date: 10 Jul 1999 09:51:18 GMT To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com In article <7m645n$f0a$1 AT autumn DOT news DOT rcn DOT net>, hardwork AT freemail DOT c3 DOT hu says... > Please forgive me if this has been mentioned before. > > Is there any benchmark we can run to compare the performance of NASM with > other x86 assemblers like A86, MASM, TASM and OPTASM? I haven't got solid numbers from a benchmark, but NASM is NOT a particularly fast assembler -- the most recent versions of the others are clustered close enough together that you have to keep pretty close track of the exact system in which tests are conducted before they mean anything at all (though, of course, the most recent version of optasm isn't really very recent at all). NASM is slower than the rest by a fairly wide margin. Of course, on a modern computer, you're unlikely to notice much real difference unless you're assembling a LOT of code. The number and size of files you use will make a difference as well -- MASM (for example) takes a while to load and start up, but assembles really fast once it's working. NASM tends to load faster, but doesn't run terribly fast. Therefore, if you have a small number of really large files, MASM will win by a large margin. If you have a lot of smaller files, things will be much closer, though I'm pretty sure MASM will still normally win.