David Cassidy said: > > I've done some tests with the below code > hope this helps
David, Could you give this version a try, and run it for 1 million iterations instead of just 10k? I'll be posting my results shortly for a couple of different machines shortly. The new version keeps the theoretical overall run time constant by keeping the overall amount of work the same while you vary the thread count. So if you supply arguments 1 and 1 million, and then 2 and 1 million, in the first case 1 thread will go through 1 million iterations, in the second case each of the two threads will only go throgh 500,000 iterations. Saves you division. ;-) Glenn, it would be interesting for you to modify the code to remove the synchronization issue and then re-run the quick benchmark. -Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
