On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:25 am, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:25 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:01, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
> > >>You haven't quite completely fixed the SD calculations it seems:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>--- Benchmarking simulated cp
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:25 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:01, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
> >>You haven't quite completely fixed the SD calculations it seems:
> >>
> >>
> >>--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Gaming in the presence of simulated---
> >>LoadLatenc
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:01, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
You haven't quite completely fixed the SD calculations it seems:
--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Gaming in the presence of simulated---
LoadLatency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU
None 2.44 +/- nan
You haven't quite completely fixed the SD calculations it seems:
--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Gaming in the presence of simulated---
LoadLatency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU
None 2.44 +/- nan 48.698.7
Video 12.8 +/- nan 55.2
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:01, Gabriel Devenyi wrote:
> You haven't quite completely fixed the SD calculations it seems:
>
>
> --- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Gaming in the presence of simulated---
> LoadLatency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU
> None 2.44 +/- nan 48.6
5 matches
Mail list logo