From: Philippe Vaucher (philippe.vaucher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-01 05:48:41
> For what it's worth, I tried running the test on a dual processor Xeon,
> a dual core Athlon 64, and a single core Celeron D. In all cases was
> QueryPerformanceCounter the slowest by at least a factor 5 to the
> closest. GetTickCount was the fastest, and timeGetTime and the Pentium
> counter traded places in the middle depending on computer.
Yes, but this test seems to measure the api overheard and not the timer's
I don't know how much having a big api overhead causes trouble over timing
small intervals, but I expect that the better resolution of QPC outweight
its api overhead.
Tell me if I didn't understand something.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk