[MenaceX^]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannz0rz Quote: Originally Posted by 0rb Quote: Originally Posted by cyber_punk I noticed a hell of a speed increase to the responses from the randoms Sorry but have you actually profiled it? Because I've tested and was very surprised... Results, from my laptop, for 500000 calls: Code: random -> Average time per call : 68 ns -> Total execution time : 34 ms -> Calls per second : 14705883 calls MRandom -> Average time per call : 51258 ns -> Total execution time : 25629 ms -> Calls per second : 19509 calls (took the best 2 results) My profiling method: pawn Code: #define BENCH_INIT(%1); new BT1=GetTickCount(),BT2,BI1,BI2=%1; #define BENCH(%1(%2)); \ {\   for(BI1=0;BI1<BI2;BI1++)\     %1(%2);\ \   BT2=GetTickCount();\   BT1=BT2-BT1;\ \   printf("\n"#%1"\n -> Average time per call : %8.f ns\n -> Total execution time : %8d ms\n -> Calls per second   : %8.f calls",\   (float(BT1)/BI2)*1000000,BT1,(float(BI2)/BT1)*1000);\ \   BT1=BT2;\ } main() {   BENCH_INIT(500000);   BENCH(random(101));   BENCH(random(101));   BENCH(MRandom(100));   BENCH(MRandom(100));   BENCH(random(101));   BENCH(random(101));   BENCH(MRandom(100));   BENCH(MRandom(100)); } Just being curious about how you noticed a speed increase because as you can see, random() is about 750x faster In this case, speed honestly shouldn't be a reason as to why you wouldn't want to use this. The randoms with Mersenne are, pardon my lack of words, more "random", while the pawn-generated version is a tad bit sad.

Upside down.