Skip to content

Phase 2 Results

Use the following tables to record official benchmark outcomes.

Main Results Table

Threads Avg Execution Time (ms) Speedup % Improvement
1 3.754 1.00 0.00
2 4.335 0.87 -15.48
4 3.111 1.21 17.14
6 0.698 5.38 81.41
8 0.649 5.79 82.72

Raw Trial Table (12 Runs)

Threads Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 Run 9 Run 10 Run 11 Run 12 Average (ms)
1 3.921 3.671 3.813 3.690 3.759 3.702 3.704 3.740 3.724 3.924 3.725 3.680 3.754
2 4.560 4.207 4.273 4.252 4.244 4.217 4.362 4.771 4.240 4.205 4.347 4.348 4.335
4 3.022 3.077 3.171 3.116 3.139 3.113 3.071 2.823 3.446 3.139 3.119 3.094 3.111
6 0.747 0.634 0.685 0.678 0.592 0.708 0.848 0.616 0.631 0.758 0.772 0.707 0.698
8 0.537 0.788 0.588 0.773 0.611 1.013 0.567 0.571 0.650 0.639 0.515 0.533 0.649

Run Evidence

Excel Summary Screenshot

Excel benchmark summary

Run 1

Run 1 output

Run 2

Run 2 output

Run 3

Run 3 output

Run 4

Run 4 output

Run 5

Run 5 output

Run 6

Run 6 output

Run 7

Run 7 output

Run 8

Run 8 output

Run 9

Run 9 output

Run 10

Run 10 output

Run 11

Run 11 output

Run 12

Run 12 output

Machine Specifications

Item Value
Processor Model Apple M2
Physical Cores 8 (4 performance + 4 efficiency)
Logical Cores (Threads) 8
RAM 8 GB
Operating System macOS Tahoe 26.3.1
Java Version OpenJDK 25 LTS (Temurin)

Graphs to Include

  • Threads vs Average Execution Time (ms)
  • Threads vs Speedup
  • Optional: Threads vs % Improvement

Interpretation Notes

  • Best-performing thread count: 8 threads with an average runtime of 0.649 ms.
  • First clear improvement beyond baseline appears at 4 threads, but the major gain begins at 6 threads.
  • 2 threads performed worse than 1 thread, which suggests that thread-management overhead outweighed any parallel benefit for that configuration.
  • 8 threads produced the best mean result, but the raw runs show some variability, so synchronization cost, scheduling behavior, and mixed performance/efficiency cores likely influenced the spread.