[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
Elias Pschernig wrote:
I uploaded my test to: http://allefant.sf.net/allegro/mixer.zip. The
problem with voices is, if I use fewer, it gets too fast. Maybe I should
let it run longer. The above numbers all are with 1024 voices mixed
together at a time (My aintern.h and digi.h are modified accordingly.).
I just create as many samples, and let them loop for some seconds. With
64 voices CPU stays at about 1%, which is below the normal fluctuation
of all the running background processes. And the user-time bash reports
doesn't say anything meaningful in that case.
I guess, someone with a very slow CPU should test it.
Since I have a 233 Cyrix M-II, I guess I'm at least partly qualified to
test. Now, I only tested the new mixer since I don't have the old mixer
to test against, but that's basically all we're testing at this point, I
believe. Here's the output:
mixertest_new 0 16 44100 1 ALSA 64
Alsa 0.9, Device 'default': 16 bits, unsigned, 44100 bps, stereo
voices: 64
real 0m10.727s
user 0m5.350s
sys 0m0.055s
mixertest_new 1 16 44100 1 ALSA 64
Alsa 0.9, Device 'default': 16 bits, unsigned, 44100 bps, stereo
voices: 64
real 0m10.483s
user 0m5.810s
sys 0m0.050s
mixertest_new 2 16 44100 1 ALSA 64
Alsa 0.9, Device 'default': 16 bits, unsigned, 44100 bps, stereo
voices: 64
real 0m10.473s
user 0m6.685s
sys 0m0.060s
I ran it 3 or 4 times, and it shows the same basic times. Quality 0 is
about 7ms faster per voice on my machine under test conditions
(mixertest.c was compiled with no optimization flags, btw). It also
seems quality 0 was right panned, so I'll look into that. That wouldn't
effect code speed, though.
- Kitty Cat