Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-beaver Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!laser-lovers From: laser-lovers@uw-beaver (laser-lovers) Newsgroups: fa.laser-lovers Subject: One man's experience with TeX vs troff: timings Message-ID: <1749@uw-beaver> Date: Fri, 21-Sep-84 20:21:22 EDT Article-I.D.: uw-beave.1749 Posted: Fri Sep 21 20:21:22 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 21:49:55 EDT Sender: yenbut@uw-beave Organization: U of Washington Computer Science Lines: 37 From: chris@maryland (Chris Torek) Here is a benchmark from William Sebok, comparing TeX and troff speeds (remailed by permission). The machine is a VAX 11/750 running 4.2BSD. >From astrovax!wls Tue Sep 18 22:55:08 1984 Subject: TeX versus troff benchmark. The results of a race-off between TeX and vtroff are as follows. The file is a tex chapter of Todd Lauer's thesis translated into troff'ese by Bruce Draine. TeX: cpu time tex 77 sec dvipr (1st pass) 22 sec verser2 (called by spooler) 43 sec ---- ------- Total 142 sec roff roff (tbl + eqn + vtroff) 175 sec rvcat (called by spooler) 36 sec ---- ------- Total 211 sec Conclusion: In this benchmark TeX uses 33% less cpu time. Whether this is enough of a difference to make you switch is up to you. [And a small appendage] "roff" here is a local shell script written by Bruce Draine that invokes tbl, eqn and vtroff and adds in some local macros. --- Bill -- (This page accidently left blank.) In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci (301) 454-7690 UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@maryland