Philippe Vaucher wrote:
For what it's worth, I tried running the test on a dual processor Xeon, a dual core Athlon 64, and a single core Celeron D. In all cases was QueryPerformanceCounter the slowest by at least a factor 5 to the closest. GetTickCount was the fastest, and timeGetTime and the Pentium counter traded places in the middle depending on computer.
Yes, but this test seems to measure the api overheard and not the timer's precision...
Indeed it does.
I don't know how much having a big api overhead causes trouble over timing small intervals, but I expect that the better resolution of QPC outweight its api overhead.
As would I. It was surprising to me that the method that seems to be meant to be used for small intervals has such a comparatively large overhead.
Tell me if I didn't understand something.
Nono. I didn't mean much by it, just thought I'd provide the information for completeness. Hence "for what it's worth." -- Daniel Wesslén