Re: [boost] Boost Timer Update

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