>On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Toby Ewing wrote:
>
>> Hi, all
>>
>> Frank suggested using the CPU timer, and I agree that it's a much better
>> benchmark than the clock timer (I keep discovering gems in gpc.pas!). But I'm
>> getting identical results from the two timers:
>>
>> var
>> time1, time2 : longCard;
>> dummy,
>> cpu1, cpu2 : integer;
>> ..
>> time1 := GetMicroSecondTime;
>> dummy := 0;
>> cpu1 := GetCPUTime(dummy);
>>
>> for i := 1 to big do j := randNorm(0.0, 1.0);
>>
>> dummy := 0;
>> cpu2 := GetCPUTime(dummy);
>> time2 := GetMicroSecondTime;
>> writeln('Time for ', big:1, ' randNorms: ', ((time2-time1)*0.000001):7:2,
>> ' seconds, ', (cpu2-cpu1):5, ' cpu seconds.');
>> ..
>>
>>
>> When the computer is idle except for this program, I get:
>> Time for 100000000 randNorms: 171.03 seconds, 171 cpu seconds.
Why not try a program that does user input, say through a readln.
When testing, you can delay the input as long as you wish. The
net cpu time should be minimal, but the wall clock time obviously
increases as you wait.
Tom
