Examining Benchmarking
VL writes "Benchmarks exist to determine how a particular piece of hardware performs in relation to itself, and to others. Question is, are readers getting the information they really need?"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
A Timex Sinclair? Impossible. I have an authentic, original ENIAC. Your puny sinclair can't possibly match that.
The guy on eBay said it's scientifically proven as the fastest computer on earth*.
* In 1947, that is.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
Umm, yeah. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem of course applies to any system, regardless of whether "system" defines a set of axiomatic rules or a bunch of PC parts. Of course, we could also say that Heisenberg Uncertainty puts any benchmark into doubt, and if we assign a number to any attribute of the system we cannot then trust other numbers. I know I'm taking some liberty with the applicability of HUT, but hey, why not. Then there's the whole Hilbert Space objections to these arbitrary transforms; without any Kolmogorov-Smirnov test we cannot trust, in the mathematical sense, the reducibility of any Eigenfunction. The Smirnov test is perhaps not ideal; maybe Bacardi-Walker would be better, or at least produce more interesting (in a completely Lanis-Morton sense) results.
1. Aquire your piece of test equipment (video card, motherboard, tower case)
2. Hold the equipment 3 to 5 feet above the bench surface
3. Release. Gravity will take care of the test
4. Measure the mark left in the bench by the equipment. Bigger mark = better equipment.
There's Lies, there's damn Lies and finally there are benchmarks.
Robert