is there better 32 clock() timing?

[Claudio Grondi]

On my 2.8GHz P4, Windows 2000 SP4 with Python 2.3.4 I am getting
totally different results compared to Ray. Does Python 2.3.4 already
use the Pentium RTDSC instruction for clock()?

Claudio
# \>  Claudio Grondi, 2.8GHz P4 Python 2.3.4 (2005-01-24 14:32)
# time of taking time:
#   0.000001396825574200073100
#   0.000001676190689040086400
#   0.000001396825574200074000
#   0.000001676190689040088100
#   0.000001955555803880100500
#   0.000001620317666072084300 (average)
# statistics of 1.000.000 times of taking time in a while loop:
#   0.000001396825573429794100 (min)
#   0.002370692364532356300000 (max)
#   0.000001598858514140937100 (avg)
# >>> Ray Schumacher, 2.4GHz P4 Python 2.3.3 (#51, Dec 18 2003, 20:22:39)
[MSC v.1200 32 bit (Intel)] on win32
#  0.000321028401686
#  0.00030348379596
#  0.000297101358228
#  0.000295895991258
#  0.000342754564927 (average)

Here my code:
# Tests show, that the first call takes longer than subsequent calls,
# so it makes sense to run  t = clock() just one time before the next calls
# are used:
t  = clock()
t0 = clock()
t1 = clock()
t2 = clock()
t3 = clock()
t4 = clock()
t5 = clock()
print 'time of taking time: '
print '  %25.24f'%((t1-t0),)
print '  %25.24f'%((t2-t1),)
print '  %25.24f'%((t3-t2),)
print '  %25.24f'%((t4-t3),)
print '  %25.24f'%((t5-t4),)
print '  %25.24f (average)'%( ((-t0+t5)/5.),)
intCounter=1000000
fltTotTimeOfTakingTime = 0.0
fltMaxTimeOfTakingTime   = 0.0
fltMinTimeOfTakingTime   = 1.0
while(intCounter > 0):
  t1 = clock()
  t2 = clock()
  timeDiff = t2-t1
  if(timeDiff < fltMinTimeOfTakingTime): fltMinTimeOfTakingTime = timeDiff
  if(timeDiff > fltMaxTimeOfTakingTime): fltMaxTimeOfTakingTime = timeDiff
  fltTotTimeOfTakingTime+=timeDiff
  intCounter-=1
#:while
fltAvgTimeOfTakingTime = fltTotTimeOfTakingTime / 1000000.0
print 'statistics of 1.000.000 times of taking time in a while loop:'
print '  %25.24f (min)'%(fltMinTimeOfTakingTime,)
print '  %25.24f (max)'%(fltMaxTimeOfTakingTime,)
print '  %25.24f (avg)'%(fltAvgTimeOfTakingTime,)

"Ray Schumacher" <rays at blue-cove.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:mailman.1120.1106491193.22381.python-list at python.org...
> I have a need for a time.clock() with >0.000016 second (16us) accuracy.
> The sleep() (on Python 2.3, Win32, at least) has a .001s limit.
>
> Are they lower/better on other's platforms?
>
> Test code, 2.4GHz P4
> Python 2.3.3 (#51, Dec 18 2003, 20:22:39) [MSC v.1200 32 bit (Intel)] on
win32
>
> import time
> t0 = time.clock()
> t1 = time.clock()
> t2 = time.clock()
> t3 = time.clock()
> t4 = time.clock()
> t5 = time.clock()
> print (-t0+t5)/5.
> print t1-t0
> print t2-t1
> print t3-t2
> print t4-t3
> print t5-t4
>
> >>>
> ave 0.000342754564927
> 0.000321028401686
> 0.00030348379596
> 0.000297101358228
> 0.000295895991258
>
> I had also considered forking a thread that would spin a loop checking
time.clock() and firing the TTL pulse after the appropriate interval, but
the real, ultimate resolution of time.clock() appears to be ~.00035s. If I
increase process priority to real-time, it is ~.00028s
> The alternative appears to be more C code...
>
> Ray
> BCI/Congitive Vision
>
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:7xbrbgxjxs.fsf at ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> Ray Schumacher <rays at blue-cove.com> writes:
> > I have a need for a time.clock() with >0.000016 second (16us) accuracy.
> > The sleep() (on Python 2.3, Win32, at least) has a .001s limit.
> >
> > Are they lower/better on other's platforms?
> >
> > The alternative appears to be more C code...
>
> C code is your best bet.  The highest resolution timer on x86's these
> days is the Pentium RTDSC instruction which counts the number of cpu
> cycles since power-on.  There's various C routines floating around
> that let you access that instruction.