The fact that there `randn` results in worse performance than `rand` seemed pretty indicative to me that the primary effect is power and not some kind of caching effect. Just like `randn`, `rand` has fully unique elements at all points. The only difference is that `randn` includes both positive and negative values, while `rand` only has …
The fact that there `randn` results in worse performance than `rand` seemed pretty indicative to me that the primary effect is power and not some kind of caching effect. Just like `randn`, `rand` has fully unique elements at all points. The only difference is that `randn` includes both positive and negative values, while `rand` only has positive values. And I'm not sure what kind of plausible caching mechanism could result in a performance change in that case :P
The fact that there `randn` results in worse performance than `rand` seemed pretty indicative to me that the primary effect is power and not some kind of caching effect. Just like `randn`, `rand` has fully unique elements at all points. The only difference is that `randn` includes both positive and negative values, while `rand` only has positive values. And I'm not sure what kind of plausible caching mechanism could result in a performance change in that case :P