Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RFC: A Preview Of The Phoronix Graphs With Iveland

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    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...

    Comment


    • #12
      Wow, theres error bars on some of the data points!

      Comment


      • #13
        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:

        Michael Larabel
        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

        Comment


        • #14
          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.

          Comment


          • #15
            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.
            Michael Larabel
            http://www.michaellarabel.com/

            Comment


            • #16
              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.

              Comment


              • #17
                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?

                Comment


                • #18
                  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.

                  Michael Larabel
                  http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      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.
                      Michael Larabel
                      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X