Performance Comparison of TPlot with TChart
Test conditions:
- Delphi 5 or Kylix 3
- TChart version 4 (in Delphi 5), "Fastline" series, versus TPlot 3.00
- PII-266/128 Dell laptop:
Results:
| Windows 2000, sp3, no IDE: |
| | TPlot | TChart |
| No of Pts | init | fps | bytes | leak |
init | fps | bytes | leak |
| 101 | 0.02 | 29.04 | 30608 | 12 | 0.02 | 13.78 | 10924 | 300 |
| 1001 | 0.02 | 15.97 | 36772 | 0 | 0.02 | 11.12 | 40664 | 0 |
| 10001 | 0.05 | 15.68 | 110432 | 0 | 0.05 | 3.56 | 328760 | 0 |
| 100001 | 0.26 | 8.83 | 829280 | 0 | 0.26 | 0.45 | 3486212 | 0 |
| 1000001 | 7.24 | 1.71 | 7968608 | 0 | 7.24 | 0.05 | 33399024 | 0 |
Linux, Mandrake 9.0 (kernel 2.4.19-16.mdk), Kylix 3, no IDE: |
| 101 | 0.28 | 12.88 | 546000 |
| 1000001 | 2.45 | 2.00 | 52924000 |
Notes:
- memory usage under Windows was determined using GetHeapStatus.
- memory usage under Linux was determined using top, as SIZE + SHARE.
- I have not run TChart under Kylix - yet.
Conclusion:
- TPlot is version 3.0 is a little bit slower than 2.xx.
- TPlot is still 2 - 30 x faster than TChart.
- TPlot initially uses more memory than TChart. However, as the number of data points rises, it uses less.
- TPlot shines with large data sets, where it is both much faster and uses less memory. This makes it ideal for scientific and engineering applications.
- Graphics are generally faster under W2K than Linux.
- Memory operations are much faster under Linux, so that the Linux GUI is faster than W2K for large data sets.