From: Michael Fawcett (michael.fawcett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-01 08:49:37
On 11/1/06, Daniel Wesslén <daniel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Michael Fawcett wrote:
> > Perhaps of interest, NVIDIA has a Timer Function Performance test app
> > that shows the performance of various timing methods. I have no clue
> > if the benchmark is written well, but speed of the actual timing
> > function may be of interest to some users as well as its precision.
> > http://developer.nvidia.com/object/timer_function_performance.html
> 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.
I just ran it on my laptop (Pentium M 1.7GHz) with similar results.
QPC seems to have the highest overhead by a lot.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk