Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daniel Wesslén (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-01 07:02:34

Philippe Vaucher wrote:
>> 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
> precision...

Indeed it does.

> 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.

As would I.

It was surprising to me that the method that seems to be meant to be
used for small intervals has such a comparatively large overhead.

> Tell me if I didn't understand something.

Nono. I didn't mean much by it, just thought I'd provide the information
for completeness. Hence "for what it's worth."

Daniel Wesslén

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at