Jesus4Lyf
Good Idea™
- Reaction score
- 397
Yeah, this discussion is fine now.
>Feel free to post "KT2 is faster with one instance than TT" wherever you want though.
Correction; faster with one item of code for x instances of it.
And, if you know how the systems work, you'll know that the different pieces of code make no difference to how fast they run. So the logical conclusion (but still untested until we get to Cohadar's test) is that KT2 is faster, regardless.
>Vexorian would bitchslap you for that.
LOL. He sure would.
We now have two bench testing methods. Zero-period method (for testing execs/sec for code attachments using any timer system, not the most reliable theoretically but seems to at least say which is faster and give a reasonable percentage), and the StopWatch method (times from when the timer starts firing the loop code to when it finishes). The Zero-period method is what I was using until that last test, the StopWatch method cannot be used for non-multi-instancing timer systems because it will grossly favour them (because it doesn't include the time it takes for a timer to fire in the first place, which is probably their greatest overhead).
Edit: Completed Cohadar's test by executing his code. Had to add the call TT_Init() line, not that it matters. Silly. I know.
Anyway... Really nice test. Quite a flashy effect you got there. Doesn't lag.
KT2 - ~199 loops/sec.
TT - ~181 loops/sec.
KT2 was 10% faster.
Of course, people should know that all this test did was add a large, consistent overhead to both systems, so all it did in effect was dilute the percentage, and hopefully satisfy Cohadar.
Cheers.
Edit: Spent 2.5 hours and completed the graphing (for my own sake, wouldn't mind the rep, though XD). I will compare any other graphs to my own. This was completed using the Zero-period method, which I have previously explained (and there is a 1 line summary in the spreadsheet). That probably concludes bench testing, for me.
>Feel free to post "KT2 is faster with one instance than TT" wherever you want though.
Correction; faster with one item of code for x instances of it.
And, if you know how the systems work, you'll know that the different pieces of code make no difference to how fast they run. So the logical conclusion (but still untested until we get to Cohadar's test) is that KT2 is faster, regardless.
>Vexorian would bitchslap you for that.
LOL. He sure would.
We now have two bench testing methods. Zero-period method (for testing execs/sec for code attachments using any timer system, not the most reliable theoretically but seems to at least say which is faster and give a reasonable percentage), and the StopWatch method (times from when the timer starts firing the loop code to when it finishes). The Zero-period method is what I was using until that last test, the StopWatch method cannot be used for non-multi-instancing timer systems because it will grossly favour them (because it doesn't include the time it takes for a timer to fire in the first place, which is probably their greatest overhead).
Edit: Completed Cohadar's test by executing his code. Had to add the call TT_Init() line, not that it matters. Silly. I know.
Anyway... Really nice test. Quite a flashy effect you got there. Doesn't lag.
KT2 - ~199 loops/sec.
TT - ~181 loops/sec.
KT2 was 10% faster.
Of course, people should know that all this test did was add a large, consistent overhead to both systems, so all it did in effect was dilute the percentage, and hopefully satisfy Cohadar.
Cheers.
Edit: Spent 2.5 hours and completed the graphing (for my own sake, wouldn't mind the rep, though XD). I will compare any other graphs to my own. This was completed using the Zero-period method, which I have previously explained (and there is a 1 line summary in the spreadsheet). That probably concludes bench testing, for me.