C clang versus Lisp SBCL fastest performance

How the programs are written matters! Always look at the source code.

If the fastest programs are * hand-written vector instructions, does the host language matter? You might be more interested in the less optimised programs — more seconds, less gz source code.

fannkuch-redux
source	secs	mem	gz	cpu secs
* C clang #6	2.24	19,772	1582	8.86
* C clang #4	13.37	19,772	1190	13.37
Lisp SBCL #5	30.84	52,736	689	30.83
C clang #5	8.09	19,772	917	31.94
* C clang #2	8.67	19,772	1563	34.02
C clang #3	34.16	19,772	574	34.15
Lisp SBCL #3	36.25	32,256	833	36.24
C clang #8	36.39	19,492	483	36.38
C clang	36.51	19,772	514	36.50
Lisp SBCL #4	9.39	32,256	1531	36.91
Lisp SBCL #2	48.01	23,040	525	48.01
n-body
source	secs	mem	gz	cpu secs
* C clang #9	2.20	19,772	1639	2.20
* C clang #5	4.86	19,772	1436	4.86
C clang #6	5.16	19,772	1186	5.16
C clang	5.37	19,772	1179	5.37
C clang #2	5.42	19,772	1270	5.42
* C clang #4	5.60	19,772	1398	5.59
C clang #8	5.72	19,492	1193	5.72
C clang #3	6.12	19,772	1214	6.12
C clang #7	6.77	19,772	1250	6.77
Lisp SBCL #2	7.80	23,168	1408	7.80
Lisp SBCL	9.25	23,168	1373	9.25
spectral-norm
source	secs	mem	gz	cpu secs
* C clang #6	0.38	19,772	1203	1.52
* C clang #4	0.72	19,772	1145	2.86
* C clang #2	0.72	19,772	941	2.87
* C clang #5	0.72	19,772	576	2.88
Lisp SBCL #6	5.33	19,680	512	5.33
Lisp SBCL	5.33	21,376	639	5.33
C clang #8	5.40	19,772	389	5.40
Lisp SBCL #3	1.44	19,680	893	5.64
Lisp SBCL #9	1.45	19,512	799	5.64
Lisp SBCL #2	1.44	19,680	920	5.64
Lisp SBCL #7	1.46	19,680	769	5.64
C clang #3	1.46	19,772	470	5.77
* C clang #7	1.82	19,772	906	7.24
mandelbrot
source	secs	mem	gz	cpu secs
C clang #9	1.22	34,332	700	4.85
C clang #5	1.53	34,864	788	6.09
* C clang #4	3.47	34,328	805	13.82
* C clang	3.49	33,172	828	13.93
* C clang #7	3.53	34,216	1000	14.00
* C clang #3	3.55	33,108	769	14.15
Lisp SBCL #4	4.18	55,028	2453	16.65
C clang #8	25.27	19,496	412	25.27
Lisp SBCL #3	9.79	54,784	900	26.14
* C clang #6		Make Error
Lisp SBCL		Bad Output
fasta
source	secs	mem	gz	cpu secs
C clang #3	0.78	19,772	1469	0.78
C clang #5	1.20	19,772	1286	1.20
C clang #2	2.43	19,616	1299	2.43
C clang #6	1.03	19,772	1936	3.03
C clang #7	0.82	19,772	2276	3.27
C clang	3.46	19,772	1213	3.46
Lisp SBCL #6	4.48	19,680	1763	4.48
Lisp SBCL #3	5.24	22,912	1592	5.24
C clang #8	8.02	19,956	839	8.02
Lisp SBCL #2	8.85	23,296	1628	8.84
Lisp SBCL	9.02	26,112	1430	9.02
C clang #4		Make Error
k-nucleotide
source	secs	mem	gz	cpu secs
C clang	6.30	129,228	1512	13.92
Lisp SBCL #4	15.67	160,384	2292	15.67
Lisp SBCL #5	15.83	160,512	2323	15.83
Lisp SBCL #6	8.76	518,912	2485	31.45
Lisp SBCL	10.77	570,368	2431	33.53
Lisp SBCL #2	44.40	511,488	1291	44.39
Lisp SBCL #3	45.19	511,488	1297	45.18
reverse-complement
source	secs	mem	gz	cpu secs
* C clang #7	0.45	499,996	1899	0.63
C clang #9	0.46	499,976	1551	0.70
C clang #2	1.16	994,536	757	1.69
C clang #5	2.08	994,108	654	2.07
* C clang #4	3.74	500,452	716	3.74
C clang #6	1.03	703,416	828	4.07
Lisp SBCL	5.46	1,494,784	911	5.46
Lisp SBCL #2		Failed
binary-trees
source	secs	mem	gz	cpu secs
C clang #2	1.66	170,236	816	5.36
C clang #3	1.89	134,272	842	5.88
Lisp SBCL #3	3.00	660,620	938	7.41
Lisp SBCL	9.57	643,680	595	9.57
C clang	17.79	264,064	660	17.79
C clang #8	19.63	285,536	607	19.62
C clang #5	9.25	351,328	914	33.65
pidigits
source	secs	mem	gz	cpu secs
C clang #2	0.74	19,772	422	0.74
C clang	0.74	19,772	459	0.74
Lisp SBCL #3	3.32	785,792	499	3.32
Lisp SBCL #4	3.33	793,088	495	3.33
Lisp SBCL #2	5.95	811,008	655	5.95
regex-redux
source	secs	mem	gz	cpu secs
C clang #5	0.82	154,568	1403	2.82
C clang #2	3.22	103,364	1121	3.22
C clang #4	0.98	154,488	1237	3.82
C clang #3	1.75	105,848	1273	4.31
Lisp SBCL #4	14.02	1,214,164	1977	29.73
C clang	Ubuntu clang version 18.1.8 (11)
Lisp SBCL	SBCL 2.4.8