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
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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk