Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44

Thread: RFC: A Preview Of The Phoronix Graphs With Iveland

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Definitely an improvement.

    Now add 3D and more colors and super shiny special effects with reflections and light sources all rendered using Blender.

    Then you could use PTS to benchmark how fast a computer can render PTS results! Use PTS on PTS on PTS on...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Wow, theres error bars on some of the data points!

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crispy View Post
    Wow, theres error bars on some of the data points!
    Now there's error bars on the static version of Iveland's pts_LineGraph too:


  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Error bars: on the first type of graphs please do _not_ show them because they will not be visible. I think it would be a better idea to print the actual number like tolerances are shown on technical drawings (in superscripts).

    On the line graphs the regular spreadsheet way is fine.

    It really looks better so far.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HokTar View Post
    Error bars: on the first type of graphs please do _not_ show them because they will not be visible. I think it would be a better idea to print the actual number like tolerances are shown on technical drawings (in superscripts).
    The standard error is already shown as "SE" under each identifier.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Now there's error bars on the static version of Iveland's pts_LineGraph too:
    This is what I thought. Perfect.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    The standard error is already shown as "SE" under each identifier.
    Just spotted it, sorry my mistake.
    However, I don't believe that they are symmetric. :P
    Well, they can be if you run 2 tests only and use linear interpolation. But as far as I know 3 tests are run as default.

    Should be like this: SE: +3.46 -1.18

    Am I missing something?

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HokTar View Post
    Just spotted it, sorry my mistake.
    However, I don't believe that they are symmetric. :P
    Well, they can be if you run 2 tests only and use linear interpolation. But as far as I know 3 tests are run as default.

    Should be like this: SE: +3.46 -1.18

    Am I missing something?
    Right now the standard error (formula used is below) is calculated from the total number of runs that was done for each individual test.


  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Right now the standard error (formula used is below) is calculated from the total number of runs that was done for each individual test.


    Is there a specific reason to use this for computer tests? I think I would just go with the min/max deviation but I'm a mechanical engineer.
    I'm just curious.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HokTar View Post
    Is there a specific reason to use this for computer tests? I think I would just go with the min/max deviation but I'm a mechanical engineer.
    I'm just curious.
    From what I have read, this would be the correct formula to use as far as I know.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •