Re: rdtsc vs. GetTickCount()
- From: "Dennis" <marianndkc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:05:01 +0200
Hi Will
To me it is much more meaningfull to measure runtime for a function.
If you measure clocktics then you will measure that a 500 MHz Pentium III is
faster than a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 (which it is not).
We are only comparing function performance so either method is equally good.
Why not do as we have done in all other 40 B&V's? Consistency is good.
Best regards
Dennis
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: rdtsc vs. GetTickCount()
- From: Will DeWitt Jr.
- Re: rdtsc vs. GetTickCount()
- References:
- rdtsc vs. GetTickCount()
- From: Bruce McGee
- Re: rdtsc vs. GetTickCount()
- From: Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
- Re: rdtsc vs. GetTickCount()
- From: Sasa Zeman
- Re: rdtsc vs. GetTickCount()
- From: Will DeWitt Jr.
- rdtsc vs. GetTickCount()
- Prev by Date: Re: rdtsc vs. GetTickCount()
- Next by Date: Re: rdtsc vs. GetTickCount()
- Previous by thread: Re: rdtsc vs. GetTickCount()
- Next by thread: Re: rdtsc vs. GetTickCount()
- Index(es):