首先，我不同意这个问题的部分公认答案(并且得到了好评)，我说:

为什么jit代码比适当优化的c++(或其他没有运行时开销的语言)运行得慢，实际上有很多原因。 程序包括:

根据定义，在运行时用于jit代码的计算周期在程序执行中不可用。 JITter中的任何热路径都将与你的代码竞争指令和CPU中的数据缓存。我们知道缓存在性能方面占主导地位，而像c++这样的原生语言在设计上并没有这种类型的争用。 运行时优化器的时间预算必然比编译时优化器的时间预算更有限(正如另一个评论者指出的那样)。

底线:最终，您几乎肯定能够在c++中创建比在c#中更快的实现。

现在，说了这么多，速度到底有多快是无法量化的，因为有太多的变量:任务、问题领域、硬件、实现质量和许多其他因素。您将在您的场景上运行测试，以确定性能上的差异，然后决定是否值得额外的努力和复杂性。

这是一个很长很复杂的话题，但为了完整起见，我觉得值得一提的是，c#的运行时优化器非常出色，能够在运行时执行某些c++编译时(静态)优化器无法实现的动态优化。即便如此，优势仍然主要体现在本机应用程序方面，但动态优化器是上面给出的“几乎肯定”限定符的原因。

--

在相对性能方面，我也被我在其他一些答案中看到的数字和讨论所困扰，所以我想我应该插话，同时为我上面所做的陈述提供一些支持。

这些基准测试的很大一部分问题是，你不能像写c#一样写c++代码，并期望得到具有代表性的结果(例如。在c++中执行成千上万的内存分配将会给你可怕的数字。)

相反，我编写了稍微更习惯的c++代码，并与@Wiory提供的c#代码进行了比较。我对c++代码所做的两个主要更改是:

使用向量::储备() 将2d数组平摊到1d以获得更好的缓存位置(连续块)

c#(。净4.6.1)

private static void TestArray()
{
    const int rows = 5000;
    const int columns = 9000;
    DateTime t1 = System.DateTime.Now;
    double[][] arr = new double[rows][];
    for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++)
        arr[i] = new double[columns];
    DateTime t2 = System.DateTime.Now;

    Console.WriteLine(t2 - t1);

    t1 = System.DateTime.Now;
    for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++)
        for (int j = 0; j < columns; j++)
            arr[i][j] = i;
    t2 = System.DateTime.Now;

    Console.WriteLine(t2 - t1);
}

运行时间(发布):初始:124ms，填充:165ms

C++14 （Clang v3.8/C2）

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>

auto TestSuite::ColMajorArray()
{
    constexpr size_t ROWS = 5000;
    constexpr size_t COLS = 9000;

    auto initStart = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();

    auto arr = std::vector<double>();
    arr.reserve(ROWS * COLS);

    auto initFinish = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
    auto initTime = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::microseconds>(initFinish - initStart);

    auto fillStart = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();

    for(auto i = 0, r = 0; r < ROWS; ++r)
    {
        for (auto c = 0; c < COLS; ++c)
        {
            arr[i++] = static_cast<double>(r * c);
        }
    }

    auto fillFinish = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
    auto fillTime = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(fillFinish - fillStart);

    return std::make_pair(initTime, fillTime);
}

运行时间(发布):初始:398µs(是的，这是微秒)，填充:152ms

总运行时间:c#: 289毫秒，c++ 152毫秒(大约快90%)

观察

Changing the C# implementation to the same 1d array implementation yielded Init: 40ms, Fill: 171ms, Total: 211ms (C++ was still almost 40% faster). It is much harder to design and write "fast" code in C++ than it is to write "regular" code in either language. It's (perhaps) astonishingly easy to get poor performance in C++; we saw that with unreserved vectors performance. And there are lots of pitfalls like this. C#'s performance is rather amazing when you consider all that is going on at runtime. And that performance is comparatively easy to access. More anecdotal data comparing the performance of C++ and C#: https://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?lang=gpp&lang2=csharpcore

归根结底，c++为您提供了对性能的更多控制。你想用指针吗?一个参考吗?栈内存?堆吗?动态多态还是用静态多态(通过模板/CRTP)消除虚表的运行时开销?在c++中你必须…呃，自己做出所有这些选择(甚至更多)，理想情况下，这样你的解决方案才能最好地解决你正在处理的问题。

问问自己是否真的想要或需要该控件，因为即使对于上面的简单示例，您也可以看到尽管性能有了显著的改进，但它需要更深入的投资才能访问。

没有严格的理由说明为什么基于字节码的语言(如c#或Java)不能像c++代码一样快。然而，c++代码在很长一段时间内都要快得多，今天在许多情况下仍然如此。这主要是因为更高级的JIT优化实现起来比较复杂，而真正酷的JIT优化现在才出现。

所以在很多情况下，c++更快。但这只是答案的一部分。c++实际上更快的情况是高度优化的程序，其中专业程序员彻底优化了代码。这不仅非常耗时(因此非常昂贵)，而且由于过度优化通常会导致错误。

On the other hand, code in interpreted languages gets faster in later versions of the runtime (.NET CLR or Java VM), without you doing anything. And there are a lot of useful optimizations JIT compilers can do that are simply impossible in languages with pointers. Also, some argue that garbage collection should generally be as fast or faster as manual memory management, and in many cases it is. You can generally implement and achieve all of this in C++ or C, but it's going to be much more complicated and error prone.

As Donald Knuth said, "premature optimization is the root of all evil". If you really know for sure that your application will mostly consist of very performance critical arithmetic, and that it will be the bottleneck, and it's certainly going to be faster in C++, and you're sure that C++ won't conflict with your other requirements, go for C++. In any other case, concentrate on first implementing your application correctly in whatever language suits you best, then find performance bottlenecks if it runs too slow, and then think about how to optimize the code. In the worst case, you might need to call out to C code through a foreign function interface, so you'll still have the ability to write critical parts in lower level language.

请记住，优化一个正确的程序相对容易，但更正一个优化的程序要难得多。

给出实际的速度优势百分比是不可能的，这在很大程度上取决于你的代码。在许多情况下，编程语言实现甚至不是瓶颈。请带着极大的怀疑态度使用http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/上的基准测试，因为这些测试的主要是算术代码，很可能与您的代码完全不同。

这是一个非常模糊的问题，没有真正明确的答案。

例如;我宁愿玩用c++而不是c#创建的3d游戏，因为性能肯定要好得多。(我知道XNA等，但它与真正的东西相去甚远)。

另一方面，如前所述;您应该使用一种能够让您快速完成所需工作的语言进行开发，并在必要时进行优化。

I suppose there are applications written in C# running fast, as well as there are more C++ written apps running fast (well C++ just older... and take UNIX too...) - the question indeed is - what is that thing, users and developers are complaining about ... Well, IMHO, in case of C# we have very comfort UI, very nice hierarchy of libraries, and whole interface system of CLI. In case of C++ we have templates, ATL, COM, MFC and whole shebang of alreadyc written and running code like OpenGL, DirectX and so on... Developers complains of indeterminably risen GC calls in case of C# (means program runs fast, and in one second - bang! it's stuck). To write code in C# very simple and fast (not to forget that also increase chance of errors. In case of C++, developers complains of memory leaks, - means crushes, calls between DLLs, as well as of "DLL hell" - problem with support and replacement libraries by newer ones... I think more skill you'll have in the programming language, the more quality (and speed) will characterize your software.

We have had to determine if C# was comparable to C++ in performance and I wrote some test programs for that (using Visual Studio 2005 for both languages). It turned out that without garbage collection and only considering the language (not the framework) C# has basically the same performance as C++. Memory allocation is way faster in C# than in C++ and C# has a slight edge in determinism when data sizes are increased beyond cache line boundaries. However, all of this had eventually to be paid for and there is a huge cost in the form of non-deterministic performance hits for C# due to garbage collection.

我在c++ vs c#中插入代码的一个领域是创建到SQL Server的数据库连接并返回结果集。我比较了c++ (ODBC上的薄层)和c# (ADO。NET SqlClient)，并发现c++比c#代码快50%左右。ADO。NET被认为是处理数据库的低级接口。你可能会发现更大的差异是内存消耗而不是原始速度。

使c++代码更快的另一件事是，你可以在粒度级别上调优编译器选项，以一种在c#中无法做到的方式进行优化。