On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:02:33PM +0200, Matthieu Bouron wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Reimar Döffinger <reimar.doeffin...@gmx.de> > wrote: > > > > > > > On 11.05.2016, at 20:37, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Matthieu Bouron wrote: > > >> From: Matthieu Bouron <matthieu.bou...@stupeflix.com> > > >> > > >> --- > > >> > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> Here are some benchmark on a rpi2 of the attached patch. > > >> > > >> ./ffmpeg -f lavfi -i > > sine=440,aformat=sample_fmts=fltp,asetnsamples=4096,abench=start,aresample=48000,abench=stop > > -t 1000 -f null - > > >> > > >> With patch: avg=0.001159 speed=44,1x > > >> Without patch: avg=0.001297 speed=40,8x > > >> > > >> ./ffmpeg -f lavfi -i > > sine=440,aformat=sample_fmts=s16p,asetnsamples=4096,abench=start,aresample=48000,abench=stop > > -t 1000 -f null - > > >> > > > > > >> With patch: avg=0.001374 speed=45,6x > > >> Without patch: avg=0.000782 speed=64,6x > > > > > > so its slower ? or am i misreading this ? > > > > > > > Yes, that seems weird. > > Also, what are common filter lengths? > > > > Sorry I inverted the two results, the neon version is actually faster: > > With*out* patch: avg=0.001374 speed=45,6x > With patch: avg=0.000782 speed=64,6x
patch is fine for me then ... i cant comment on the arm code though [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Frequently ignored answer#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker. User questions about the command line tools should be sent to the ffmpeg-user ML. And questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the libav-user ML.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
