Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@jpivarski
Last active November 16, 2025 22:21
Show Gist options
  • Select an option

  • Save jpivarski/da343abd8024834ee8c5aaba691aafc7 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.

Select an option

Save jpivarski/da343abd8024834ee8c5aaba691aafc7 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Display the source blob
Display the rendered blob
Raw
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
Display the source blob
Display the rendered blob
Raw
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
Display the source blob
Display the rendered blob
Raw
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
@itamarst
Copy link

My experience is that PyPy doesn't interact well with NumPy. I think this is part of the motivation for the HPy project (https://hpyproject.org/).

@jpivarski
Copy link
Author

Good point... CPython is a little faster when dealing with its own builtin types, too.

Replacing the NumPy data structure with a list of lists (in the hot part of the loop), here's CPython again:

Python 3.9.18 | packaged by conda-forge | (main, Dec 23 2023, 16:33:10) 
[GCC 12.3.0] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import timeit
>>> import numpy as np
>>> def run_python(height, width):
...     y, x = np.ogrid[-1:0:height*1j, -1.5:0:width*1j]
...     c = x + y*1j
...     fractal = np.full(c.shape, 20, dtype=np.int32).tolist()
...     x, y, c = x.tolist(), y.tolist(), c.tolist()
...     for h in range(height):
...         for w in range(width):                  # for each pixel (h, w)...
...             z = c[h][w]
...             for i in range(20):                 # iterate at most 20 times
...                 z = z**2 + c[h][w]              # applying z → z² + c
...                 if abs(z) > 2:                  # if it diverges (|z| > 2)
...                     fractal[h][w] = i           # color the plane with the iteration number
...                     break                       # we're done, no need to keep iterating
...     return fractal
... 
>>> timeit.timeit(lambda: run_python(200, 300), number=10)
1.000359961999493
>>> timeit.timeit(lambda: run_python(200, 300), number=10)
0.9851951990021917
>>> timeit.timeit(lambda: run_python(200, 300), number=10)
0.9806630249986483
>>> timeit.timeit(lambda: run_python(200, 300), number=10)
0.9808432169993466
>>> timeit.timeit(lambda: run_python(200, 300), number=10)
0.9776434310006152

and here's pypy:

Python 3.9.18 | packaged by conda-forge | (9c4f8ef1, Mar 08 2024, 07:32:51)
[PyPy 7.3.15 with GCC 12.3.0] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>>> import timeit
>>>> import numpy as np
>>>> def run_python(height, width):
....     y, x = np.ogrid[-1:0:height*1j, -1.5:0:width*1j]
....     c = x + y*1j
....     fractal = np.full(c.shape, 20, dtype=np.int32).tolist()
....     x, y, c = x.tolist(), y.tolist(), c.tolist()
....     for h in range(height):
....         for w in range(width):                  # for each pixel (h, w)...
....             z = c[h][w]
....             for i in range(20):                 # iterate at most 20 times
....                 z = z**2 + c[h][w]              # applying z → z² + c
....                 if abs(z) > 2:                  # if it diverges (|z| > 2)
....                     fractal[h][w] = i           # color the plane with the iteration number
....                     break                       # we're done, no need to keep iterating
....     return fractal
.... 
>>>> timeit.timeit(lambda: run_python(200, 300), number=10)
0.6174074949994974
>>>> timeit.timeit(lambda: run_python(200, 300), number=10)
0.6332233270004508
>>>> timeit.timeit(lambda: run_python(200, 300), number=10)
0.7321933960010938
>>>> timeit.timeit(lambda: run_python(200, 300), number=10)
0.6341267679999874
>>>> timeit.timeit(lambda: run_python(200, 300), number=10)
0.6687725560004765

Now we get pypy being about 1.7× faster than CPython, which is in the ballpark of what I'd expect.

Personally, I'm still a lot more swayed by the 200× that you get through other methods. For any numerical work, I'd try to get the operation on numerical data compiled with known types, no boxing, no garbage collectors, and all the rest.

@itamarst
Copy link

itamarst commented Oct 17, 2024

I got intrigued and went and found a dual scalar / handwritten portable SIMD implementation of the Mandelbrot algorithm: https://pythonspeed.com/articles/optimizing-with-simd/

@m4jow
Copy link

m4jow commented Jul 30, 2025

Thanks for sharing. To avoid memory access errors, a CUDA kernel must still check whether the x- and y-indices are within the array boundaries. For large zoom depths, it is useful to integrate perturbation theory as shown here:
https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set#Normal_Map_Effect,_Mercator_Projection_and_Deep_Zoom_Images
Some sample programs that use DPEP and Modular instead of CUDA on non-NVIDIA hardware can be found here:
https://github.com/IntelPython/DPEP/tree/main/demos/mandelbrot
https://github.com/modular/modular/tree/main/examples/custom_ops
https://github.com/modular/modular/tree/main/examples/mojo/python-interop

@34j
Copy link

34j commented Aug 20, 2025

Just wanted to mention that I did similar research (comparing Numba, Taichi, Warp, and JAX with different number of pixels & 200 loops) at https://github.com/34j/mandelbrot-benchmark. Hope this helps.
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment