benchmarking_nd4j

It looks like while converting from my benchmarking code you've dropped the 'f' when creating the resulting array. https://github.com/treo/benchmarking_nd4j/blob/master/src/ma... The difference is rather huge with the newer versions of nd4j. While the numbers in the following gists do not contain the measurements I took for neanderthal, they do contain the numbers that I got for ND4J. Without f ordering: https://gist.github.com/treo/1fab39f213da26255cf4f75e383ff90... With f ordering: https://gist.github.com/treo/94fe92c9417b5c8b24baa12924a35b0... As you can see something happened in the time between the 0.4 release (I took that as the comparison point since that was when I ran my own benchmarks the last time) and the 0.9.1 release that introduced additional overhead. Originally I planned to create my own write-up on this, but I wanted to

For anyone interested in looking at or running ND4J benchmarks, these links may be useful. https://github.com/treo/benchmarking_nd4j/tree/master/src/ma... deeplearning4j.org/native http://deeplearning4j.org/workspaces We have our own garbage collection as well as native config and off heap memory management. We use this https://github.com/deeplearning4j/deeplearning4j/blob/master... to specify use of MKL.