On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:57, David Lang wrote: > this looks very interesting, however one thing that looks odd to me in > this is the thought of comparing the results for significantly different > hardware. > > for some of the loads you really are going to be independant of the speed > of the hardware (burn, compile, etc will use whatever you have) however > for others (X, audio, video) saying that they take a specific percentage > of the cpu doesn't seem right. > > if I have a 400MHz cpu each of these will take a much larger percentage of > the cpu to get the job done then if I have a 4GHz cpu for example. > > for audio and video this would seem to be a fairly simple scaleing factor > (or just doing a fixed amount of work rather then a fixed percentage of > the CPU worth of work), however for X it is probably much more complicated > (is the X load really linearly random in how much work it does, or is it > weighted towards small amounts with occasional large amounts hitting? I > would guess that at least beyond a certin point the liklyhood of that much > work being needed would be lower)
Actually I don't disagree. What I mean by hardware changes is more along the lines of changing the hard disk type in the same setup. That's what I mean by careful with the benchmarking. Taking the results from an athlon XP and comparing it to an altix is silly for example. Cheers, Con
pgpKkxQl7OqzM.pgp
Description: PGP signature