The actual ITERATION takes the same, no matter how long the screen output
takes. The report on the screen is NOT time for iteration PLUS time to
display the report... It's time for the iteration WITHOUT the screen display.
At 10:29 PM 9/15/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I was wondering why the "Iterations between screen outputs" setting
>was defaultly set on 100, and I thought it was beacuse each screen
>output takes precious CPU time.
>
>But when I changed it from 100 i/o (usually around 0.430 sec/iter) to
>10 i/o, nothing really slowed down - the time was still between 0.430
>and 0.431 s/i.
>
>So I boldly went where no man has gone before ;) and changed it to 1
>i/o... and the times still stayed between 0.429 and 0.431 s/i.
>
>The question is, how much of the CPU's power is consumed by screen
>outputs?
>
>If it is really around 0.001 s/i (in 0.430 s/i neighbourhood), I'll
>leave mine at 10 i/o, so I can see it's alive. ;)
>
>Thanks for your time,
>-- Shot
> __
> c"? Shot - [EMAIL PROTECTED] hobbies: Star Wars, Pterry, GIMPS, ASCII
> `-' [EMAIL PROTECTED] join the GIMPS @ http://www.mersenne.org
> Science Explained (by Kids): Clouds just keep circling the earth
> around and around. And around. There is not much else to do.
>_________________________________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
>Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
_________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
