Andrew Suffield wrote: > wasted"? These figures will change almost randomly depending on what > else is running on the host at the same time. That's why I pasted the Idle time. > They certainly don't reflect how an application will perform in the cases you > care about, Talk about exact things! > especially if (like xine and mplayer) they adapt their performance profile > when system load is high - which any decent multimedia application should be > doing. "adapt their performance profile" ?? :)) It's called framedropping :) > This is closer to the domain of real benchmarks, but it's still at the > sort of level you get from a marketing department. ROTFL :) 1. __you are free to reproduce it__ 2. you failed to point out _what_ and _why_ is wrong in benchmarking a gcc compilation to get Idle CPU time, just say "marketing". :) I can't think you ever did any benchmarks, sorry.. So unless you say _reasons_ why the benchmark was bad, please don't answer. > (One golden rule is that if a benchmark was quoted without giving the > variance, it's neither objective nor useful). Variance? > > So thanks for your mail, but next time you doubt I can read 'top' output, > > think twice. > Uhh, the whole point was that top is not a useful benchmarking > tool. What mail were you reading? Ok, if you tell me that top is lying when it writes "0% CPU is idle when xine is running", then you better don't send that mail at all. Anyway, don't send any mails at all. I saw aaxine, and seen it's fucking slow. You don't believe it but failed to produce benchmarks to prove you truth, so I don't care. You never tried aaxine, I already see that. You simply don't want to believe, so it doesn't matter what benchmarks I post. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team
Attachment:
pgp5DaYsIOfye.pgp
Description: PGP signature