The before/after published a p99 ratio of 6.0x at 4K. It is not supported and
the correction is worth more than the number was.
The baseline run's `fit` rows spread 2.3x between median and 99th percentile
while every row of the after run spreads about 1.1x. A stage costing
`radius x pixels` has no reason to be bimodal, and `fit` is the memory-bound
configuration — it walks the whole 482 MB source on a stride where `1:1` reads
a contiguous window. Something else had the machine.
The merge brings in the cross-check that settles it: "Try every GPU, not only
the fastest one" measured the same baseline code on the same card and reports
4.67 ms p99 for M3 clarity fit at 2560x1600, against 10.40 ms here. Two
measurements of one thing differing by 2.2x mean the noisier one is wrong.
So both percentiles are now published and the p50 column is the claim: 2.8x at
4K rather than 6.0x. The p99 improvement is real and larger; this run cannot
say by how much, and says so.
What the caveat does not touch: every after figure is inside the 16 ms budget
with a p99 within 26% of its median at every size and both views, and clarity
against all-four is a within-run comparison.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
dtourolleandClaude Opus 5
480c46c41a