Arnd a écrit : > Hi! > > Thank you for continuing development of Geeqie. I am a long time GQview > user. I use some other viewers as well. > > Here are some speed comparisons which might be interesting. I've done > them on an old P3-600 single CPU computer, which demonstrates the > differences (absolute values are not significant in this comparison) > quite well. All programs were compiled with -O2, kernel is 2.6.27.7, the > versions are: > * Geeqie 1.0beta2 > * GQview 2.1.5 > * KuickShow 0.8.13 > * Xzgv 0.8 > > The resulting times in seconds were measured with the time command, user > cpu time only, numbers are averages of 5 tries, plus one pre-try not > measured so that everything is always in memory cache. > > With the exception of Xzgv, all are very slow to load a folder full of > files, and Geeqie is the slowest by far. This is what hurts the most the > current user experience with Geeqie in my opinion, because if you move > or add files the wait times accumulate. > > Geeqie is the best at zooming an image, and the worst at displaying > progressive JPEGs. Displaying non-zoomed normal (baseline) JPEGs is ok, > but GQview is quicker, which should not be! ;-) > > Xzgv is the fastest overall. This sure has to do with its reduced set of > features, but its display code might be interesting. > > Regards, > Arnd > > > PS: Results > > 1) Program startup > === > > 1.1) Empty folder > ---- > geeqie: 1,20 > gqview: 0,41 > kuickshow: 1,14 > xzgv: 0,12 > > 1.2) Folder with 5100 images (1st image very small) > ---- > geeqie: 10,7 > gqview: 7,1 > kuickshow: 6,0 > xzgv: 0,2 > > 2) Image loading > ===(only 1 image in folder, without startup time) > > 2.1) Baseline JPEG, 6000x4690, no zoom > ---- > geeqie: 10,1 > gqview: 9,9 > kuickshow: 11,5 > xzgv: 9,2 > > 2.2) Baseline JPEG, 6000x4690, zoom to window > ---- > geeqie: 12,8 > gqview: 22,6 > kuickshow: 15,4 > > 2.3) Progressive JPEG, 1638x2000, no zoom > ---- > geeqie: 8,0 > gqview: 6,4 > kuickshow: 0,7 > xzgv: 0,6 > > 2.3) Progressive JPEG, 1638x2000, zoom to window > ---- > geeqie: 10,0 > gqview: 9,5 > kuickshow: 8,8 > > > > Thanks for the numbers ! There is definitively a lot of space for improvement it seems...
It would be interesting to have such numbers for recent hardware too (n CPUs/more RAM). Thank you. -- Zas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Geeqie-devel mailing list Geeqie-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geeqie-devel
