我想这么说:编写更快代码的程序员，是那些更了解当前机器运行速度的人，顺便说一句，他们也是那些使用适当工具的人，这些工具允许精确的低级和确定性优化技术。由于这些原因，这些人使用C/ c++而不是c#。我甚至认为这是事实。

需要大量内存访问的应用程序。图像处理通常更适合在非托管环境(c++)而不是托管环境(c#)中编写。使用指针算法优化的内循环在c++中更容易控制。在c#中，你可能需要使用不安全的代码来获得相同的性能。

c++(或C)为您提供了对数据结构的细粒度控制。如果你想玩，你有这个选择。大型托管Java或。net应用程序(OWB, Visual Studio 2005)，它们使用Java/。NET库自带包袱。我曾见过OWB设计会话使用超过400 MB的RAM，立方体或ETL设计的bid也达到100 MB。

在可预测的工作负载上(例如重复一个过程多次的大多数基准测试)，JIT可以为您提供优化得足够好的代码，没有实际差别。

在大型应用程序上，差异与其说是JIT，不如说是代码本身使用的数据结构。当应用程序的内存很重时，您将获得较低的缓存使用效率。在现代cpu上，缓存丢失是非常昂贵的。C或c++的真正优势在于，您可以优化数据结构的使用，从而更好地使用CPU缓存。

C/ c++在有大型数组或数组(任何大小)上的大量循环/迭代的程序中可以表现得更好。这就是为什么在C/ c++中图形化通常要快得多，因为几乎所有的图形化操作都基于繁重的数组操作。net在数组索引操作中是出了名的慢，这是由于所有的安全检查，这对于多维数组尤其如此(是的，矩形c#数组甚至比锯齿形c#数组还要慢)。

The bonuses of C/C++ are most pronounced if you stick directly with pointers and avoid Boost, std::vector and other high-level containers, as well as inline every small function possible. Use old-school arrays whenever possible. Yes, you will need more lines of code to accomplish the same thing you did in Java or C# as you avoid high-level containers. If you need a dynamically sized array, you will just need to remember to pair your new T[] with a corresponding delete[] statement (or use std::unique_ptr)—the price for the extra speed is that you must code more carefully. But in exchange, you get to rid yourself of the overhead of managed memory / garbage collector, which can easily be 20% or more of the execution time of heavily object-oriented programs in both Java and .NET, as well as those massive managed memory array indexing costs. C++ apps can also benefit from some nifty compiler switches in certain specific cases.

I am an expert programmer in C, C++, Java, and C#. I recently had the rare occasion to implement the exact same algorithmic program in the latter 3 languages. The program had a lot of math and multi-dimensional array operations. I heavily optimized this in all 3 languages. The results were typical of what I normally see in less rigorous comparisons: Java was about 1.3x faster than C# (most JVMs are more optimized than the CLR), and the C++ raw pointer version came in about 2.1x faster than C#. Note that the C# program only used safe code—it is my opinion that you might as well code it in C++ before using the unsafe keyword.

Lest anyone think I have something against C#, I will close by saying that C# is probably my favorite language. It is the most logical, intuitive and rapid development language I've encountered so far. I do all my prototyping in C#. The C# language has many small, subtle advantages over Java (yes, I know Microsoft had the chance to fix many of Java's shortcomings by entering the game late and arguably copying Java). Toast to Java's Calendar class anyone? If Microsoft ever spends real effort to optimize the CLR and the .NET JITter, C# could seriously take over. I'm honestly surprised they haven't already—they did so many things right in the C# language, why not follow it up with heavy-hitting compiler optimizations? Maybe if we all beg.

对于“令人尴尬的并行”问题，当在c++上使用Intel TBB和OpenMP时，我观察到与用c#和TPL处理的类似(纯数学)问题相比，性能大约提高了10倍。SIMD是c#无法竞争的一个领域，但我也有一个印象，TPL有相当大的开销。

也就是说，我只在性能关键的任务中使用c++，我知道我将能够多线程并快速得到结果。对于其他任何事情，c#(偶尔f#)都很好。

根据我的经验(这两种语言我都用过很多)，与c++相比，c#的主要问题是内存消耗高，而且我还没有找到控制它的好方法。最终导致。net软件变慢的是内存消耗。

另一个因素是JIT编译器不能提供太多时间来进行高级优化，因为它在运行时运行，如果花费太多时间，最终用户会注意到它。另一方面，c++编译器有足够的时间在编译时进行优化。恕我直言，这个因素远没有内存消耗那么重要。