I got: REALTIME: 73.6744 REALTIME: 22.4142 REALTIME: 21.4316 REALTIME: 22.3956
on four successive tries with Pd version 0.40.3-extended-20070905 on WinXP with dual Pentium 4 2.4GHz. I guess the first time loaded it into the disk cache or something like that. Anyway it seems like the other cpu is just for decoration. Martin >From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: PD list <pd-list@iem.at> >Subject: [PD] GUI speed test >Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:01:03 -0500 > > >I devised a quick test of loading speed and did some quick comparisons on >my MacBook Pro 2.4GHz. (I am used to having one of the slowest machines >around, my old 800Mhz Powerbook, so I still have to readjust my thinking). > Here's my times: > >14ms Pd-0.39.3-extended >6.5ms Pd-0.40-2 vanilla >16ms Pd-0.40.3-extended-20071111 > >So on the face of it, it looks like really large time differences. >Percentage-wise it is a large difference, but perceptually, waiting 7ms >vs. 16ms for something to load is not at all meaningful. No human could >tell the difference in the experience unless you were generating sounds >and visuals based on the opening and closing of the patch. > >This is, of course, on a fast machine. 300ms vs 800ms would be a big >perceptual difference, basically it would be the feeling of opening quick >versus a wait. > >I'd be interested to see how this fares on other machines and OSes. I >attached the patches > ><< speedtest.zip >> > >.hc > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >---- > >Access to computers should be unlimited and total. - the hacker ethic > > >_______________________________________________ >PD-list@iem.at mailing list >UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list