"My framework test 4 goes from 2000FPS to 1400FPS i.e. loses 600FPS."
How can you even get a reading of 2000fps? If you're using millisecond timing you can only get up to 1000 or so, unless maybe you're incremeting a counter and calculating the number of frames that were rendered after a second has passed, or maybe doing some kind of timer averaging over multiple frames so that times of 0 and 1 repeating forever give you 2000.
Anyway do you know how much of a difference between 1400fps and 1600fps? 1400fps is 0.7ms per frame. 1600fps is 0.6ms per frame. Thats a difference of a TENTH of a millisecond!
It might be a 200fps diffference, but what are you going to do in 200 frames that take a tenth of a millisecond to render? Not much. In fact, I'd say it'd be downright impossible to actually do any real game stuff in that amount of time. That means that your real world framerates will be lower. And that means more time between frames. A LOT more. And that means that if you're running at 100fps, there's TEN milliseconds in between each frame. Indiepath's method will cost you only one TENTH of a millisecond, total, over the course of TWO THOUSAND frames. Divide 1/10th by 2000 and you get a verrrrry tiny number. That's how much time you lose per frame.
In other words, your methodology is magnifying the difference between your two functions so greatly that it LOOKS like there's a big difference between your two methods, but in fact your method is less than 10% faster, and the amount of time either takes is so tiny as to be insignificant in the 0.00005th degree. (That's 0.1/2000)
Therefore you should go with the method that works better.
How can you even get a reading of 2000fps? If you're using millisecond timing you can only get up to 1000 or so, unless maybe you're incremeting a counter and calculating the number of frames that were rendered after a second has passed, or maybe doing some kind of timer averaging over multiple frames so that times of 0 and 1 repeating forever give you 2000.
Anyway do you know how much of a difference between 1400fps and 1600fps? 1400fps is 0.7ms per frame. 1600fps is 0.6ms per frame. Thats a difference of a TENTH of a millisecond!
It might be a 200fps diffference, but what are you going to do in 200 frames that take a tenth of a millisecond to render? Not much. In fact, I'd say it'd be downright impossible to actually do any real game stuff in that amount of time. That means that your real world framerates will be lower. And that means more time between frames. A LOT more. And that means that if you're running at 100fps, there's TEN milliseconds in between each frame. Indiepath's method will cost you only one TENTH of a millisecond, total, over the course of TWO THOUSAND frames. Divide 1/10th by 2000 and you get a verrrrry tiny number. That's how much time you lose per frame.
In other words, your methodology is magnifying the difference between your two functions so greatly that it LOOKS like there's a big difference between your two methods, but in fact your method is less than 10% faster, and the amount of time either takes is so tiny as to be insignificant in the 0.00005th degree. (That's 0.1/2000)
Therefore you should go with the method that works better.