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 hans@eds.org 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