On 16/10/2016 23:23, Martin Storsjö wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016, Luca Barbato wrote:
> 
>> On 16/10/2016 22:18, Martin Storsjö wrote:
>>>
>>> Now the comparison to libvpx is much more close; we're rarely slower
>>> at all, and even much faster in some cases.
>>
>> Probably you could update the statement in the commit and push it then =)
> 
> I've already updated it actually, although it's all pretty hard to
> notice the nuances.
> 
> Originally it was:
> ---8<---
> The libvpx functions are marginally faster on A7, A8 and A9, while
> our is marginally faster on A53 (which is where it has been tuned
> during development). Overall they are pretty similar.
> ---8<---
> 
> Then after some tuning, my verdict was:
> ---8<---
> Our version is consistently marginally faster on A53, consistently
> marginally slower on A9, and faster in some tests but slower in some,
> on A7 and A8.
> ---8<---
> 
> And now it is:
> ---8<---
> Our version is consistently faster on on A7 and A53, consistently
> marginally slower on A9, and faster in some tests but slower in some,
> on A7 and A8.
> ---8<---
> 

Thank you for the clarification =)

_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel

Reply via email to