printf more than 5 times faster than std::cout?

ApprenticeHacker picture ApprenticeHacker · Aug 20, 2012 · Viewed 12.8k times · Source
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cstdio>
#include <ctime>

int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
    std::clock_t start;
    double duration;    

    std::cout << "Starting std::cout test." << std::endl;
    start = std::clock();

    for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
    {
        std::cout << "Hello, World! (" << i << ")" << std::endl;
    }

    duration = (std::clock() - start) / (double) CLOCKS_PER_SEC;

    std::cout << "Ending std::cout test." << std::endl;
    std::cout << "Time taken: " << duration << std::endl;

    std::system("pause");

    std::cout << "Starting std::printf test." << std::endl;
    start = std::clock();

    for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
    {
        std::printf("Hello, World! (%i)\n", i);
        std::fflush(stdout);
    }

    duration = (std::clock() - start) / (double) CLOCKS_PER_SEC;

    std::cout << "Ending std::printf test." << std::endl;
    std::cout << "Time taken: " << duration << std::endl;

    system("pause");

    return 0;
}

Now, here are the times for the first five runs:

  • std::cout test: 1.125 s ; printf test: 0.195 s
  • std::cout test: 1.154 s ; printf test: 0.230 s
  • std::cout test: 1.142 s ; printf test: 0.216 s
  • std::cout test: 1.322 s ; printf test: 0.221 s
  • std::cout test: 1.108 s ; printf test: 0.232 s

As you can see, using printf and then fflushing takes about 5 times less time than using std::cout.

Although I did expect using std::cout's << operator to be perhaps a little slower (almost minimal) , I wasn't prepared for this huge difference. Am I making a fair test? If so, then what makes the first test so much slower than the second one, if they essentially do the exact same thing?

Answer

Martin York picture Martin York · Aug 20, 2012

Try this:

#include <cstdlib>
#include <cstdio>
#include <ctime>
#include <iostream>

int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
#if defined(NOSYNC)
    std::cout.sync_with_stdio(false);
#endif

    std::cout << "Starting std::cout test." << std::endl;

    std::clock_t start = std::clock();

    for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
    {   
        std::cout << "Hello, World! (" << i << ")" << std::endl;
    }   

    clock_t mid = std::clock();

    for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
    {   
        std::printf("Hello, World! (%i)\n", i); 
        std::fflush(stdout);
    }   

    std::clock_t end = std::clock();

    std::cout << "Time taken: P1 " << ((mid-start)*1.0/CLOCKS_PER_SEC) << std::endl;

    std::cout << "Time taken: P2 " << ((end-mid)*1.0/CLOCKS_PER_SEC) << std::endl;


    return 0;
}

Then I get:

> g++ -O3 t13.cpp
> ./a.out
# lots of lines deleted
Time taken: P1 0.002517
Time taken: P2 0.001872

> g++ -O3 t13.cpp -DNOSYNC   
> ./a.out
# lots of lines deleted
Time taken: P1 0.002398
Time taken: P2 0.001878

So the P2 times do not change.
But you get an improvement of the P1 times (ie std::cout) using std::cout.sync_with_stdio(false);. Becuase the code no longer tries to keep the two stream (std::cout stdout) synchronized. Which if you are writing pure C++ and only using std::cout not a problem.