2 ms·
It's distinctly sub-par on 6 of 18 benchmarks while close or better in 12. That's why I said "mostly on par"
by famouswaffles 3y ago
It's distinctly sub-par on 6 of 18 benchmarks while close or better in 12. That's why I said "mostly on par"
- lisasays 3y agoSeems you got it reversed - it's the expert which performs sub-par on 6 rounds, while doing better on 12. While missing also the part about when it outperforms, it does so "at a significantly wider margin (2x-3x)". Which is why, no, it's not "mostly on par". Just look at the data.