Martijn van Beurden wrote:
> For anyone wondering, here's a PDF comparing encoding speed,
> decoding speed and compression between FLAC 1.2.1, 1.3.0 and
> 1.3.1pre1.
>
> Compiles on a Intel Core 2 Duo T9600 (SSE up to and including
> 4.1, no AVX), Kubuntu 14.04.1, GCC 4.9.1.
Awesome! Thanks M
For anyone wondering, here's a PDF comparing encoding speed,
decoding speed and compression between FLAC 1.2.1, 1.3.0 and
1.3.1pre1.
Compiles on a Intel Core 2 Duo T9600 (SSE up to and including
4.1, no AVX), Kubuntu 14.04.1, GCC 4.9.1.
long set of samples-1.3.1pre1.pdf
Description: Adobe PD
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:18:58PM +0200, Martijn van Beurden wrote:
> http://www.audiograaf.nl/misc_stuff/FLAC-performance-test-Linux-GCC-4.8.pdf
> http://www.audiograaf.nl/misc_stuff/FLAC-performance-test-Wine-MSVC-2013.pdf
>
> For the GCC 4.8 results, there is a*very nice 60% to 70% speed incre
Martijn van Beurden wrote:
> For the GCC 4.8 results, there is a*very nice 60% to 70% speed
> increase* when encoding with preset -8 between FLAC 1.3.0 and
> current git.
Currently FLAc defaults to -msse2 which means that SSSE3 and SSE4.1
optimizations don't work with GCC < 4.9. SSE4.1 is useful
Hi all,
I thought it was a good idea to get an overview of the
developments since the release of 1.3.0, so here are a few graphs.
The first was compiled with GCC 4.8, the second was compiled
with MSVC 2013. Both were tested on a Kubuntu 14.04 machine,
with an Intel Core 2 Duo T9600 (SSE supp
Hi all,
I once more did a performance check on the latest git. The
binaries in this new test have been compiled with GCC 4.8.1 on
Ubuntu 13.10. The CPU is a Intel Core 2 Duo T9600.
http://www.icer.nl/misc_stuff/FLAC-1.3.0-versus-git-15e28a4.pdf
It seems the last few patches by lvqcl made quite
Martijn van Beurden wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I had some time to spare so I made a comparison of current git versus
> the FLAC 1.3.0 release considering encoding and decoding speed. This was
> done with GCC 4.7.3 for AMD64 linux.
>
> There's a very nice speedup visible. Keep up the good work!
I wa
Hi all,
I had some time to spare so I made a comparison of current git versus
the FLAC 1.3.0 release considering encoding and decoding speed. This was
done with GCC 4.7.3 for AMD64 linux.
There's a very nice speedup visible. Keep up the good work!
FLAC 1.3.0 versus git a6a4b6f.pdf
Descripti
On 3.6.2013 14:24, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 02:33:55PM +0300, Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
On 1.6.2013 14:24, Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
I can confirm. I see 10% speed improvement with that change on Core i7.
Decoding a 1h18min38.133s long test FLAC -8 encoded file takes with
norma
On 3.6.2013 14:24, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 02:33:55PM +0300, Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
>> On 1.6.2013 14:24, Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
>>> I can confirm. I see 10% speed improvement with that change on Core i7.
>>> Decoding a 1h18min38.133s long test FLAC -8 encoded file takes w
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 02:33:55PM +0300, Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
> On 1.6.2013 14:24, Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
> > I can confirm. I see 10% speed improvement with that change on Core i7.
> > Decoding a 1h18min38.133s long test FLAC -8 encoded file takes with
> > normal asm optimizations 7.656s (speed
On 1.6.2013 14:24, Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
> On 31.5.2013 13:04, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 04:08:57PM +0200, Martijn van Beurden wrote:
>>> I was surprised to see that the Windows compile on wine actually
>>> outperformed the native Linux one. Probably GCC 4.6 optimized a li
On 31.5.2013 13:04, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 04:08:57PM +0200, Martijn van Beurden wrote:
>> I was surprised to see that the Windows compile on wine actually
>> outperformed the native Linux one. Probably GCC 4.6 optimized a little
>> better or something very weird is going
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 04:08:57PM +0200, Martijn van Beurden wrote:
> I was surprised to see that the Windows compile on wine actually
> outperformed the native Linux one. Probably GCC 4.6 optimized a little
> better or something very weird is going on in wine, I don't know. The
> assembly opti
On 28-05-13 20:09, Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
> On Windows the 32-bit NASM enabled compiles are always fastest. If you
> can run 32-bit code on your Linux box you should compile with assembly
> optimizations.
That depends on the way you define speed. For decoding this doesn't seem
to be true. I rer
On 28.5.2013 21:06, Martijn van Beurden wrote:
> On 28-05-13 19:38, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>> I'm always interested in performance tests :).
> In that case I hope you saw the previous one, because the decoding
> speed-up was credited to be one of your patches, according to some
> people over at Hy
On 28-05-13 19:38, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> I'm always interested in performance tests :).
In that case I hope you saw the previous one, because the decoding
speed-up was credited to be one of your patches, according to some
people over at HydrogenAudio:
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-d
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Martijn van Beurden wrote:
> I was doing some checks in preparation of updating the comparison on
> the FLAC page this summer and I thought the results might be
> interesting for people on the dev list as well.
I'm always interested in performance tests :)
Hi all,
I was doing some checks in preparation of updating the comparison on the
FLAC page this summer and I thought the results might be interesting for
people on the dev list as well.
Because the mentioned comparison runs a few codecs through wine I wanted
to check whether wine gives a per
19 matches
Mail list logo
