On 11-01-13 15:26, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > Very nice. I'd like to see the comparison page updated too. I've just > few questions on the pdf. Was the comparison done on a 32 or 64-bit > system?
All comparisons were done on a 64-bit system. However, I did not see much deviation from tests in the past, so I guess there are no codecs that take much advantage of it. > Doesn't using wine negatively affect the performance? It might indeed affect performance, but theoretically it shouldn't: Wine is only an emulation layer for system calls, and as lossless codecs usually don't need a lot of system calls compared to raw processing power, this should not affect encoding or decoding time much. Josh did his comparison on Windows, but on Windows there is no easy way to create a ramdisk, which is a problem as current CPUs are much to fast for any (non-SSD) harddisk to keep up. I also can't time CPU-time used, only real time > Wouldn't it be better to use a logarithmic scale in the graphs for > encoding/decoding times and speeds? Yes, it would give a much clearer and fairer picture and I have created graphs with logarithmic scales in the past, but I found out that most people find it very hard to read those scales and are used to the 'distorted' view of the linear scale. Things like 1x or 300x speed are easier to understand than 1*10^0 and 3 * 10^2, while it is exactly the same. To compensate for this I added 'inverse' graphs to the PDF which show CPU usage instead of times realtime speed, but I think that two graphs are enough for the "summary" on the website. 4 graphs are too confusing I think. _______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
