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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 in
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 little
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
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 reran
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 :).
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
