Is Rust faster than C?

To be honest, I think a lot of the justification here is just a difference in standard library and ease of use.

I wouldn't consider there to be any notable effort in making thread build on target platforms in C relative to normal effort levels in C, but it's objectively more work than `std::thread::spawn(move || { ... });`.

Despite benefits, I don't actually think the memory safety really plays a role in the usage rate of parallelism. Case in point, Go has no implicit memory safety with both races and atomicity issues being easy to make, and yet relies much heavier on concurrency (with a parallelism degree managed by the runtime) with much less consideration than Rust. After all, `go f()` is even easier.

(As a personal anecdote, I've probably run into more concurrency-related heisenbugs in Go than I ever did in C, with C heisenbugs more commonly being memory mismanagement in single-threaded code with complex object lifetimes/ownership structures...)

Apart from multi threading, there is more information in the Rust type system. Would that would allow more optimizations?

I think the way Rust checks borrows also makes it a lot more feasible to avoid allocations/copies; not because it is impossible to do in C, but because doing it in C requires writing very careful documentation and the caller to actually read that documentation. In (safe) Rust this is all checked by the compiler such that libraries can leverage it without blowing their complexity budget.

Then again, often

  #pragma omp for 

is a very low mental-overhead way to speed up code.

    > When writing single-threaded code takes 90% of effort of writing multi-threaded one

That "when" is doing some heavy lifting! More seriously: You raise a very interesting point. When I moved from C++ to Java (10+ years ago), I was initially so nervous to add threads to my Java code. Why? Because it was (then) difficult and dangerous to do it in C++. C++ debuggers were awful, so I didn't think I could debug problems with multi-threaded C++ code. (Of course, the C++ ecosystem has drastically improved in the last 10 years, so I am sure it is now much more pleasant (and safe) to write multi-threaded C++ code.) When I finally sat down to add threads to some Java code, I could not believe how easy it was, including debugging. As a result, going forward, I was much more likely to add threads to my Java... or even start with a multi-threaded design, even if there is only a modest performance improvement.

    Even just spawning a thread is going to make somebody complain that they can't build the code on their platform due to C11/pthread/openmp. 

This matches squarely with my experience, but it's not limited to threading, and Rust evades a large swath of these problems by relatively limited platform support. I look forward to the day I can run Rust wherever I run C!

In C, one can build data structures with pointers that would require reference counting and heap allocation in Rust. The performance would also depend on what kind of CPU/features it is compiled for.

Whether one should do it is a different question.

I'm still confused as to why linux requires linking against TBB for multithreading, thus breaking cmake configs without if(linux) for tbb. That stuff should be included by default without any effort by the developer.

> Rust programmers may as well sprinkle threads all over the place regardless whether that's a 16x improvement or 1.5x improvement

What about energy use and contention?

Multithreading does not make code more efficient. It still takes the same amount of work and power (slightly more).

On a backend system where you already have multiple processes using various cores (databases, web servers, etc) it usually doesn’t make sense as a performance tool.

And on an embedded device you want to save power so it also rarely makes sense.

I will admit the title was a bit of a gamble, but thank you for taking the time to read it and I'm glad that you enjoyed it in the end.

Here is my issue

> Is Rust faster than C

> Example:

>... unsafe...

Its like Rust proponents can't even see the irony.

I probably enjoy ELF hacking more than most, but patching an ELF binary via LD_PRELOAD, linker hacks, or even manual or assisted relinking tricks are just tools in the bag of performant C/C++ (and probably Rust too, but I don't get paid to make that fast). If you care about perf and for whatever reason are using someone else's code, you should be intimately familiar with your linker, binary format, ABI, and OS in addition to your hardware. It's all bytes in the end, and these abstractions are pliable with standard tooling.

I'd usually rather have a nice language-level interface for customizing implementation, but ELF and Linux scripting is typically good enough. Binary patching is in a much easier to use place these days with good free tooling and plenty of (admittedly exploit-oriented) tutorials to extrapolate from as examples.

> In c the callers isn’t choosing typically. The author of some library or api decides this for you.

Tbf this applies to Rust too. If the author writes

   fn foo(bar: Box<dyn BarTrait>)

they have forced the caller into dynamic dispatch.

Had they written

   fn foo(bar: impl BarTrait)

the choice would've remained open to the caller

It's a tradeoff though, as I think traits makes the Rust build times grow really quickly. I don't know the exact characteristics of it, also I think they speed it up compared to how it used to be, but I do remember that you'll get noticeable build slowdowns the more you use traits, especially "complicated" ones.

The C way is to avoid abstractions in first place.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. Rust is a LANGUAGE and C is a LANGUAGE. They are used to describe behaviours. When you COMPILE and then RUN them you can measure speed, but that's dependent on two additional bits that are not intrinsically part of the languages themselves.

Now: the languages may expose patterns that a compiler can make use of to improve optimizations. That IS interesting, but it is not a question of speed. It is a question of expressability.

>in Rust and C++, the standard library sorting functions are templated on the comparison function. This means it's much easier for the compiler to specialize the sorting function, inline the comparisons and optimize around it.

I think this is something of a myth. Typically, a C compiler can't inline the comparison function passed to qsort because libc is dynamically linked (so the code for qsort isn't available). But if you statically link libc and have LTO, or if you just paste the implementation of qsort into your module, then a compiler can inline qsort's comparison function just as easily as a C++ compiler can inline the comparator passed to std::sort. As for type-specific optimizations, these can generally be done just as well for a (void *) that's been cast to a T as they can be for a T (though you do miss out on the possibility of passing by value).

That said, I think there is an indirect connection between a templated sort function and the ability to inline: it forces a compiler/linker architecture where the source code of the sort function is available to the compiler when it's generating code for calls to that function.

> On the other hand, signed integer overflow being UB would count for C/C++

C and C++ don't actually have an advantage here because this is only limited to signed integers unless you use compiler-specific intrinsics. Rust's standard library allows you to make overflow on any specific arithmetic operation UB on both signed and unsigned integers.

There was a contest for which language the fastest tokenizer could be written in. I entered my naive 15 minutes Rust version and got second place among roughly 30 entries. First place was hand-crafted assembly.

I am not saying Rust is faster always. But it can be a damn performant language even if you don't think about performance too deeply or don't twist yourself into bretzels to write performant code.

And in my book that counts for something. Because yes, I want my code to be performant, but I'd also not have it blow up on edge cases, have a way to express limitations (like a type system) and have it testable. Rust is pretty good even if you ignore the hype. I write audio DSP code on embedded devices with a strict deadline in C++. I plan to explore Rust for this, especially now since more and more embedded devices start to have more than one processor core.

The main performance difference between Rust, C, and C++ is the level of effort required to achieve it. Differences in level of effort between these languages will vary with both the type of code and the context.

It is an argument about economics. I can write C that is as fast as C++. This requires many times more code that takes longer to write and longer to debug. While the results may be the same, I get far better performance from C++ per unit cost. Budgets of time and money ultimately determine the relative performance of software that actually ships, not the choice of language per se.

I've done parallel C++ and Rust implementations of code. At least for the kind of performance-engineered software I write, the "unit cost of performance" in Rust is much better than C but still worse than C++. These relative costs depend on the kind of software you write.

> On the other hand, signed integer overflow being UB would count for C/C++

Rust defaults to the platform treatment of overflows. So it should only make any difference if the compiler is using it to optimize your code, what will most likely lead to unintended behavior.

This is a tangent, because it clearly didn’t pan out, but I had hope for rust having an edge when I learned about how all objects are known to be immutable or not. This means all the mutable objects can be held together, as well as the immutable, and we’d have more efficient use of the cache: memory writes to mutable objects share the cache with other mutable objects, not immutable Objects, and the bandwidth isn’t wasted on writing back bytes of immutable objects that will never change.

As I don’t see any reason rust would be limited in runtime execution compared to c, I was hoping for this proving an edge.

Apparently not a big of an effect as I hoped.

> For instance, in C, qsort() takes a function pointer for the comparison function, in Rust and C++, the standard library sorting functions are templated on the comparison function.

That's more of a critique of the standard libraries than the languages themselves.

If someone were writing C and cared, they could provide their own implementation of sort such that the callback could be inlined (LLVM can inline indirect calls when all call sites are known), just as it would be with C++'s std::sort.

Further, if the libc allows for LTO (active area of research with llvm-libc), it should be possible to optimize calls to qsort this way.

I’m not sure about the other UB opportunities, but in idiomatic rust code this just doesn’t come up.

In C, you frequently write for loops with signed integer counters for the compiler to realize the loop must hit the condition. In Rust you write for..each loops or invoke heavily inlined functional operators. It ends up all lowering to the same assembly. C++ is the worst here because size_t is everywhere in the standard library so you usually end up using size_t for the loop counter, negating the ability for the compiler to exploit UB.

>signed integer overflow being UB would count for C/C++

Then, I raise you to Zig which has unsigned integer overflow being UB.

You're qsort example is basically the same reason people say C++ is faster than Rust. C++ templates are still a lot more powerful than Rusts systems but that's getting closer and closer every day.

And compile time execution.

With C you only have macro soup and the hope the compiler might optimise some code during compilation into some kind of constant values.

With C++ and Rust you're sure that happens.

Rust has linker optimizations that can make it faster in some cases

At that point the real question should be restated. Does the LLVM IL that is generated from clang and rustc matter in a meaningful way?

Strict aliasing analysis of rust will provide some fundamental better optimization than C.

I like this framing a lot.

It's also interesting to think about this in terms of the "zero cost abstractions"/"zero overhead abstractions" idea, which Stroustrup wrote as "What you don't use, you don't pay for. What you do use, you couldn't hand code any better". The first sentence is about 1, and the second one is about what you're able to do with 2.

I think there's a third question, but I don't know quite how to phrase it. Maybe "how real-world fast is the language?" or "how fast is the language in the hands of someone who isn't obsessively thinking about speed?"

That is, most of the time, most of the users aren't thinking about how to squeeze the last tenth of a percent of speed out of it. They aren't thinking about speed at all. They're thinking about writing code that works at all, and that hopefully doesn't crash too often. How fast is the language for them? Does it nudge them toward faster code, or slower? Are the default, idiomatic ways of writing things the fast way, or the slow way?

A lot of people think of static types as a safety feature, but the origin is performance. The assembly needs to know struct sizes ahead of time.

Is Javascript significantly slower? It is extremely common in the real world and so a lot of effort has gone into optimizing it - v8 is very good. Yes C and Rust enable more optimizations: they will be slightly faster, but javascript has had a lot of effort put into making it run fast.

> There is a set of programs that you can write in C and that are correct, that you cannot write in Rust without leaning into unsafe code. So if by "Rust" we mean "the safe subset of Rust"

Well, unsafe rust is part of rust. So no, we don’t mean that.

Language design still has a huge impact on which optimizations are practically implementable.

The Mythical Sufficiently Smart Compiler is, in fact, still mythical.

Both of those things are important, sure. I wanted this post to be talking about the higher level conceptual question, and then using interesting examples to tease out various aspects of that discussion, more than "here's what I think are the biggest differences between the two."

I think these two things are also things people would argue about a lot. It's hard to talk about them in a concrete sense of things, rather than just "I feel like code usually does X".

So assembly is the slowest language?

Or honestly, anything involving a hashmap. Of course you can write those in C, but it’s enough friction that most people won’t for minor things. In Rust, it’s trivial, so people are more likely to use them.

It's compilers and compiler optimizations that make code run fast. The real question is if the Rust language and the richer memory semantics it has help the Rust compiler to provide a bit more context for optimizing that the C compiler wouldn't have do unless you hand optimize your code.

If you do hand optimize your code, all bets are off. With both languages. But I think the notion that the Rust compiler has more context for optimizing than the C compiler is maybe not as controversial as the notion that language X is better/faster than language Y. Ultimately, producing fast/optimal code in C kind of is the whole point of C. And there aren't really any hacks you can do in C that you can't do in Rust, or vice versa. So, it would be hard to make the case that Rust is slower than C or the other way around.

However, there have been a few rewrites of popular unix tools in Rust that benchmark a bit faster than their C equivalents. Could those be optimized in C. Probably; but they just haven't. But there is a case there of arguing that maybe Rust code is a bit easier to make fast than C code.

> we can say that a fast language is the one where an average programmer is most likely to produce fast code with a given budget

I'd say most people use this definition, with the caveat that there's no official "average programmer", and everyone has different standards.

I think when designing a language, and a set of libraries for it, the designer has an idea of how code for said language should be written, what 'idiomatic' code looks like.

In that context, the designer can reason about how should code written that way should perform.

So I think this is a meaningful question for a langauge designer, which makes it a meaningful question for the users as well, when phrased like this:

'How does idiomatic code (as imagined by the language creators) perform in language X vs Y?'

These are the languages an "average programmer" would use. What language are you thinking of?

I'd certainly agree that malloc is the Achilles heel of any real world C. Overall though C++ was not a particularly good solution to memory efficiency since having OO available made the situation look like a fast sprint to the cake shop.

Other examples are CTRE (https://github.com/hanickadot/compile-time-regular-expressio...) and format string compilation (https://fmt.dev/12.0/api/#compile-api). The closest C counterpart is re2c which also requires external tooling.

In the spirit of the article... there's a few ways in which this could go :)

The first is, we do have some amount of empirical evidence here: Rust had to turn its aliasing optimizations on and off again a few times due to bugs in LLVM. A comment from 2021: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54878#issuecomment-...

> When noalias annotations were first disabled in 2015 it resulted in between 0-5% increased runtime in various benchmarks.

This leaves us with a few relevant questions:

Were those benchmarks representative of real world code? (They're not linked, so we cannot know. The author is reliable, as far as I'm concerned, but we have no way to verify this off-hand comment directly, I link to it specifically because I'd take the author at their word. They do not make any claim about this, specifically.)

Those benchmarks are for Rust code with optimizations turned off and back on again, not Rust code vs C code. Does that make this a good benchmark of the question, or a bad one?

These were llvm's 'noalias' markers, which were written for `restrict` in C. Do those semantics actually take full advantage of Rust's aliasing model, or not? Could a compiler which implements these optimizations in a different way do better? (I'm actually not fully sure of the latest here, and I suspect some corners would be relying on the stacked borrows vs tree borrows stuff being finalized)

Many C programs are vailid C++ and are faster when compiled with a C++ compiler because of those stricter aliasing and type rules. Like you though I have no examples.

When the optimizer knows writes can't change the reads, it can reorder and coalesce them. The main benefit of that is enabling autovectorization in more cases. Otherwise it saves a few loads here and there.

Not exactly real world, but real code example demonstrating strict aliasing rule in action for C++. https://godbolt.org/z/WvMb34Kea Rust should have even more opportunities of this due to restrictions it has for writable references.

There are 2 main differences between versions with and without strict aliasing. Without strict aliasing compiler can't assume that the result accumulator doesn't change during the loop and it has to repeatedly read/write it each iteration. With strict aliasing it can just read it to register, do the looping and write the result back at the end once. Second effect is that with strict aliasing enabled compiler can vectorize the loop processing 4 floats at the same time, most likely the same uncertainty of counter prevents vecotorization without strict aliasing.

If you want something slightly simpler example you can disable vectorization by adding '-fno-tree-vectorize'. With it disabled there is still difference in handling of counter.

Using restrict pointers and multiple same type input arrays it would probably be possible to make something closer to real world example.

I believe this advantage is currently mostly theoretical, as the code ultimately gets compiled with LLVM which does not fully utilize all the additional optimization opportunities.

Thank you.

I wrote this at a time when I was pretty anti-LLM, but I do think that you're right that there's some interesting implications of LLM usage in this space. And that's because one version of this question is "what can the average x programmer do compared to the average y programmer in the same amount of time," and I'm curious if LLMs lift all tides here, or not.

> Want it fast? Turn off the runtime checks by calling unsafe code.

You can do that for sure, but you can also sometimes write your code in a different way. https://davidlattimore.github.io/posts/2025/09/02/rustforge-... is an interesting collection of these.

> it doesn't read like the author has spent weeks in a profiler combing over machine code to optimize Rust code

It is true that this blog post was not intended to be a comprehensive comparison of the ways in which Rust and C differ in performance. It was meant to be a higher level discussion on the nature of the question itself, using a few examples to try and draw out interesting aspects of that comparison.

> If you want a stupid fast interpreter in C, you do computed goto, write a comment explaining why its not, in fact, cursed, and you're done.

Bit of an aside, but these days it might be worth experimenting with tail call interpreters coupled with `musttail` annotations. CPython saw performance improvements over their computed goto interpreters with this method, for example [0].

[0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/1010905/

What are your favorite tools for profiling/optimizing C and Rust code?

I've never run into this issue in the wild. It sounds like a hypothetical. Upgrading your Rust toolchain is ridiculously easy, and using a year old outdated toolchain is more or less a philosophical hang up than a technical one.

Yes. Your point about noalias (the keyword is 'restrict' in C, noalias is the LLVM IR annotation) is right.

What I will say is that the fact that Rust uses this so much, and had to turn it off because of all the bugs it shook out, at least implies that it's not used very much in real-world C code. I don't know how to more scientifically analyze that, though.

Yes, the same way is that Fortran is faster than C due to stricter aliasing rules.

But in practice C, Rust and Fortran are not really distinguishable on their own in larger projects. In larger projects things like data structures and libraries are going to dominate over slightly different compiler optimizations. This is usually Rust's `std` vs `libc` type stuff or whatever foundational libraries you pull in.

For most practical Rust, C, C++, Fortran and Zig have about the same performance. Then there is a notable jump to things like Go, C# and Java.

What abstraction do you refer to?

Not a stupid question :)

Part of what I'm getting at here is that you have to decide what is in those benchmarks in the first place. Yes, benchmarks would be an important part of answering this question, but it's not just one question: it's a bunch of related but different questions.

Here's the draft of C23: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3220.pdf

See "6.7.3.2 Structure and union specifiers", paragraph 16 & 17:

> Each non-bit-field member of a structure or union object is aligned in an implementation-defined manner appropriate to its type.

> Within a structure object, the non-bit-field members and the units in which bit-fields reside have addresses that increase in the order in which they are declared.

It is indeed part of the standard. It says "Within a structure object, the non-bit-field members and the units in which bit-fields reside have addresses that increase in the order in which they are declared"[1] which doesn't allow implementations to reorder fields, at least according to my understanding.

[1] https://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n3220.pdf section 6.7.3.2, paragraph 17.

> struct field alignment/padding isn't part of the C spec iirc

It's part of the ABI spec. It's true that C evolved in an ad hoc way and so the formal rigor got spread around to a bunch of different stakeholders. It's not true that C is a lawless wasteland where all behavior is subject to capricious and random whims, which is an attitude I see a lot in some communities.

People write low level software to deal with memory layout and alignment every day in C, have for fourty years, and aren't stopping any time soon.

In your specific example `std::convert::Infallible` can be used: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/convert/enum.Infallible.html

It's a good reason to choose Rust over C++ for that application, and others that share its characteristics. (Or, more to the point of the article, it's a good reason to declare that Rust is faster than C++ for that application.)

It doesn't provide a lot of evidence in either direction for the rest of the vast space of potential programs.

(Knowing C++ fairly well and Rust not very well, I have Opinions, but they are not very well-informed opinions. They roughly boil down to: Rust is generally better for most programs, largely due to cargo not Rust, but C++ is better for more exploratory programming where you're going to be frequently reworking things as you go. Small changes ripple out across the codebase much more with Rust than C++ in my [limited] experience, and as a result the percentage of programming time spent fixing things up is substantially higher with Rust.)

Only if it is repeatable. We have no information on what they learned in the two failed attempts - it is likely that they learned from the failures and started other architectural changes that enabled the final one to work. As such we cannot say anything about this.

Rust does have some interesting features, which restrict what you are allowed to do and thus make some things impossible but in turn make other things easier. It is highly likely that those restrictions are part of what made this possible. Given infinite resources (which you never have) a C++ implementation could be faster because it has better shared data concepts - but those same shared data concepts make it extremely hard to reason about multi-threaded code and so humanly you might not be able to make it work.

Yes. "Is language X faster than language Y?" means "Is language X better than language Y?", which means "Do you like language X more than you like language Y?", which means "Do you have more experience with language X than language Y?" (well, good experiences, I guess).

So "Is language X faster than language Y?" is totally answerable, but the answer depends on the answerer.

I use chrome btw.

It gets brought up because the conversation is not “is Firefox better than Chrome,” the conversation is about Rust’s multithreading guarantees. It’s just an entirely different conversation.

For example, your own beefs with Mozilla have nothing to do with the technical choices made by the code.

I love Betteridge's Law, and so one small thing I was trying to do here was subvert it a bit. Instead of "no," in this case, the answer is "the question is malformed."

That’s not how I would summarize what I wrote, for what it’s worth. My summary would be “the question is malformed, you need to first state what the boundaries are for comparison before you can make any conclusions.” I think this is an interesting thing to discuss because many people assume that the answer to “is x faster than C?” to be “no” for all values of X.

The article felt fairly dispassionate and even-handed to me, and I say this as someone who dislikes Klabnik very much and also dislikes the Rust community (especially its insidious, forced MIT rewrites of popular GPL software, with which they also break backwards compatibility). It is worth mentioning that there are certain things about Rust that conceivably could make it faster, e.g., const by default (theoretically facilitating certain optimizations), but in practice, thus far, do not.

Yes, I'm deliberately trying to evoke it to subvert it, see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46616037

It did not contribute to a yes/no answer, which is good, because it is not answerable with "yes" or "no", and the article points that out and explains why. So I would disagree; it does contribute to answering the question, in the form of spelling out why it is unanswerable.

Compare:

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

"I do not beat my wife."

The response contributes to the answer, even if it brings you no closer to "yes" or "no".

As I just posted, any speed comparison needs to be based on specific implementations (compiler A vs compiler B), not languages.

When it comes to assembly, the "compiler" is the person writing the code, and while assembly gives you the maximum flexibility to potentially equal or outperform any compiler for any language, there are not too many people with the skill to do that, especially when writing large programs (which due to the effort required are rarely written in assembler). In general there is much more potential for improving the speed of programs by changing the design and using better algorithms, which is where high level languages offer a big benefit by making this easier.

It depends on what you're writing and what the scope is. Here's a good quote about this from Steve Yegge, from his time working at Geoworks (company that did an entire desktop OS written entirely in 8086 assembly as a competitor to Windows for low-end PCs). https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/05/dynamic-languages-s...

> I went to the University of Washington and [then] I got hired by this company called Geoworks, doing assembly-language programming, and I did it for five years. To us, the Geoworkers, we wrote a whole operating system, the libraries, drivers, apps, you know: a desktop operating system in assembly. 8086 assembly! It wasn't even good assembly! We had four registers! [Plus the] si [register] if you counted, you know, if you counted 386, right? It was horrible.

> I mean, actually we kind of liked it. It was Object-Oriented Assembly. It's amazing what you can talk yourself into liking, which is the real irony of all this. And to us, C++ was the ultimate in Roman decadence. I mean, it was equivalent to going and vomiting so you could eat more. They had IF! We had jump CX zero! Right? They had "Objects". Well we did too, but I mean they had syntax for it, right? I mean it was all just such weeniness. And we knew that we could outperform any compiler out there because at the time, we could!

> The problem is, picture an ant walking across your garage floor, trying to make a straight line of it. It ain't gonna make a straight line. And you know this because you have perspective. You can see the ant walking around, going hee hee hee, look at him locally optimize for that rock, and now he's going off this way, right?

> This is what we were, when we were writing this giant assembly-language system. Because what happened was, Microsoft eventually released a platform for mobile devices that was much faster than ours. OK? And I started going in with my debugger, going, what? What is up with this? This rendering is just really slow, it's like sluggish, you know. And I went in and found out that some title bar was getting rendered 140 times every time you refreshed the screen. It wasn't just the title bar. Everything was getting called multiple times.

> Because we couldn't see how the system worked anymore!

> Small systems are not only easier to optimize, they're possible to optimize. And I mean globally optimize.

True, but also a tautology.

Instead, I'd say that Rust & C are close enough, speed-wise, that (1) which one is faster will depend on small details of the particular use case, or (2) the speed difference will matter less than other language considerations.

This is like saying that no car is faster than any other because it depends what gear you drive it in