C# performance analysis- how to count CPU cycles?

Question

Is this a valid way to do performance analysis? I want to get nanosecond accuracy and determine the performance of typecasting:

class PerformanceTest
{
    static double last = 0.0;
    static List<object> numericGenericData = new List<object>();
    static List<double> numericTypedData = new List<double>();

    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        double totalWithCasting = 0.0;
        double totalWithoutCasting = 0.0;
        for (double d = 0.0; d < 1000000.0; ++d)
        {
            numericGenericData.Add(d);
            numericTypedData.Add(d);
        }
        Stopwatch stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
        for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
        {

            stopwatch.Start();
            testWithTypecasting();
            stopwatch.Stop();
            totalWithCasting += stopwatch.ElapsedTicks;

            stopwatch.Start();
            testWithoutTypeCasting();
            stopwatch.Stop();
            totalWithoutCasting += stopwatch.ElapsedTicks;
        }

        Console.WriteLine("Avg with typecasting = {0}", (totalWithCasting/10));
        Console.WriteLine("Avg without typecasting = {0}", (totalWithoutCasting/10));
        Console.ReadKey();
    }

    static void testWithTypecasting()
    {
        foreach (object o in numericGenericData)
        {
            last = ((double)o*(double)o)/200;
        }
    }

    static void testWithoutTypeCasting()
    {
        foreach (double d in numericTypedData)
        {
            last = (d * d)/200;
        }
    }
}

The output is:

Avg with typecasting = 468872.3
Avg without typecasting = 501157.9

I'm a little suspicious... it looks like there is nearly no impact on the performance. Is casting really that cheap?

Update:

class PerformanceTest
{
    static double last = 0.0;
    static object[] numericGenericData = new object[100000];
    static double[] numericTypedData = new double[100000];

    static Stopwatch stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
    static double totalWithCasting = 0.0;
    static double totalWithoutCasting = 0.0;
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        for (int i = 0; i < 100000; ++i)
        {
            numericGenericData[i] = (double)i;
            numericTypedData[i] = (double)i;
        }

        for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
        {
            stopwatch.Start();
            testWithTypecasting();
            stopwatch.Stop();
            totalWithCasting += stopwatch.ElapsedTicks;
            stopwatch.Reset();

            stopwatch.Start();
            testWithoutTypeCasting();
            stopwatch.Stop();
            totalWithoutCasting += stopwatch.ElapsedTicks;
            stopwatch.Reset();
        }

        Console.WriteLine("Avg with typecasting = {0}", (totalWithCasting/(10.0)));
        Console.WriteLine("Avg without typecasting = {0}", (totalWithoutCasting / (10.0)));
        Console.ReadKey();
    }

    static void testWithTypecasting()
    {
        foreach (object o in numericGenericData)
        {
            last = ((double)o * (double)o) / 200;
        }
    }

    static void testWithoutTypeCasting()
    {
        foreach (double d in numericTypedData)
        {
            last = (d * d) / 200;
        }
    }
}

The output is:

Avg with typecasting = 4791
Avg without typecasting = 3303.9

Answer 1

Note that it's not typecasting that you are measuring, it's unboxing. The values are doubles all along, there is no type casting going on.

You forgot to reset the stopwatch between tests, so you are adding the accumulated time of all previous tests over and over. If you convert the ticks to actual time, you see that it adds up to much more than the time it took to run the test.

If you add a stopwatch.Reset(); before each stopwatch.Start();, you get a much more reasonable result like:

Avg with typecasting = 41027,1
Avg without typecasting = 20594,3

Unboxing a value is not so expensive, it only has to check that the data type in the object is correct, then get the value. Still it's a lot more work than when the type is already known. Remember that you are also measuring the looping, calculation and assigning of the result, which is the same for both tests.

Boxing a value is more expensive than unboxing it, as that allocates an object on the heap.

Answer 2

1) Yes, casting is usually (very) cheap.

2) You are not going to get nanosecond accuracy in a managed language. Or in an unmanaged language under most operating systems.

Consider

• other processes
• garbage collection
• different JITters
• different CPUs

And, your measurement includes the foreach loop, looks like 50% or more to me. Maybe 90%.