Here's a quick test of a simple case: a program to read a list of numbers from standard input and XOR all of the numbers.
iostream version:
#include <iostream>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int parity = 0;
int x;
while (std::cin >> x)
parity ^= x;
std::cout << parity << std::endl;
return 0;
}
scanf version:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int parity = 0;
int x;
while (1 == scanf("%d", &x))
parity ^= x;
printf("%d\n", parity);
return 0;
}
Results
Using a third program, I generated a text file containing 33,280,276 random numbers. The execution times are:
iostream version: 24.3 seconds
scanf version: 6.4 seconds
Changing the compiler's optimization settings didn't seem to change the results much at all.
Thus: there really is a speed difference.
EDIT: User clyfish points out below that the speed difference is largely due to the iostream I/O functions maintaining synchronization with the C I/O functions. We can turn this off with a call to std::ios::sync_with_stdio(false);:
#include <iostream>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int parity = 0;
int x;
std::ios::sync_with_stdio(false);
while (std::cin >> x)
parity ^= x;
std::cout << parity << std::endl;
return 0;
}
New results:
iostream version: 21.9 seconds
scanf version: 6.8 seconds
iostream with sync_with_stdio(false): 5.5 seconds
C++ iostream wins! It turns out that this internal syncing / flushing is what normally slows down iostream i/o. If we're not mixing stdio and iostream, we can turn it off, and then iostream is fastest.
The code: https://gist.github.com/3845568
