test multithreading 64x64x64x64 complex double float
on
processor       : 3
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 37
model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU       M 520  @ 2.40GHz
stepping        : 5
microcode       : 0x2
cpu MHz         : 2393.883
cache size      : 3072 KB

2 threads:
Evaluation took:
  1.180 seconds of real time
  2.324000 seconds of total run time (2.148000 user, 0.176000 system)
  [ Run times consist of 0.016 seconds GC time, and 2.308 seconds non-GC time. ]
  196.95% CPU
  2,824,369,742 processor cycles
  536,870,944 bytes consed

4 threads:
Evaluation took:
  1.112 seconds of real time
  4.236000 seconds of total run time (3.988000 user, 0.248000 system)
  [ Run times consist of 0.016 seconds GC time, and 4.220 seconds non-GC time. ]
  380.94% CPU
  2,662,384,024 processor cycles
  536,932,544 bytes consed

1 thread:
Evaluation took:
  2.301 seconds of real time
  2.300000 seconds of total run time (2.144000 user, 0.156000 system)
  [ Run times consist of 0.020 seconds GC time, and 2.280 seconds non-GC time. ]
  99.96% CPU
  5,508,410,848 processor cycles
  536,870,944 bytes consed

apparently, fftw doesn't run much faster on the hyperthreading cpus
2 threads gives the best speed up on the 2 core, (with hyperthreading 4 core) machine
100 times 512x512 cdf fft takes
Evaluation took:
  1.457 seconds of real time
  2.872000 seconds of total run time (2.872000 user, 0.000000 system)
  197.12% CPU
  3,487,769,918 processor cycles
  8,434,192 bytes consed
=> 68fps
512x512 with plan measured instead of estimate
Evaluation took:
  0.739 seconds of real time
  1.456000 seconds of total run time (1.456000 user, 0.000000 system)
  197.02% CPU
  1,768,340,162 processor cycles
  8,390,720 bytes consed
=> 135fps (twice the speed)
patient takes 50s to measure 512x512 and the runs in
Evaluation took:
  0.682 seconds of real time
  1.332000 seconds of total run time (1.324000 user, 0.008000 system)
  195.31% CPU
  1,631,238,560 processor cycles
  8,421,360 bytes consed
84x84x84x84 with measure (planning approx 20s)
Evaluation took:
  2.393 seconds of real time
  4.740000 seconds of total run time (4.232000 user, 0.508000 system)
  [ Run times consist of 0.020 seconds GC time, and 4.720 seconds non-GC time. ]
  198.08% CPU
  5,727,508,258 processor cycles
  1,593,203,712 bytes consed
planning for 64x64x64x64 with measure:
Evaluation took:
  38.495 seconds of real time
  42.172000 seconds of total run time (41.156000 user, 1.016000 system)
  [ Run times consist of 0.020 seconds GC time, and 42.152 seconds non-GC time. ]
  109.55% CPU
  92,155,920,786 processor cycles
  537,165,776 bytes consed

running 64x64x64x64:
Evaluation took:
  0.635 seconds of real time
  1.248000 seconds of total run time (1.088000 user, 0.160000 system)
  [ Run times consist of 0.020 seconds GC time, and 1.228 seconds non-GC time. ]
  196.54% CPU
  1,522,040,790 processor cycles
  536,911,408 bytes consed