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.