--- AnyEvent/lib/AnyEvent.pm	2008/04/26 04:33:51	1.94
+++ AnyEvent/lib/AnyEvent.pm	2008/04/27 03:31:53	1.97
@@ -961,6 +961,16 @@
 the same time, so select/poll-based implementations get an unnatural speed
 boost.
 
+Also, note that the number of watchers usually has a nonlinear effect on
+overall speed, that is, creating twice as many watchers doesn't take twice
+the time - usually it takes longer. This puts event loops tested with a
+higher number of watchers at a disadvantage.
+
+To put the range of results into perspective, consider that on the
+benchmark machine, handling an event takes roughly 1600 CPU cycles with
+EV, 3100 CPU cycles with AnyEvent's pure perl loop and almost 3000000 CPU
+cycles with POE.
+
 C<EV> is the sole leader regarding speed and memory use, which are both
 maximal/minimal, respectively. Even when going through AnyEvent, it uses
 far less memory than any other event loop and is still faster than Event
@@ -1125,7 +1135,9 @@
 The benchmark tries to test the performance of a typical small
 server. While knowing how various event loops perform is interesting, keep
 in mind that their overhead in this case is usually not as important, due
-to the small absolute number of watchers.
+to the small absolute number of watchers (that is, you need efficiency and
+speed most when you have lots of watchers, not when you only have a few of
+them).
 
 EV is again fastest.
 
@@ -1136,7 +1148,7 @@
 
 The pure perl event loop is much slower, but still competitive.
 
-POE also performs much better in this case, but is is stillf ar behind the
+POE also performs much better in this case, but is is still far behind the
 others.
 
 =head3 Summary