I did some testing of vorbis codec (Winamp plugin) on a Pentium 166 MMX, and found that the performance is pretty good. I got 3 % cpu utisization if I turned dithering off, and 5 % otherwise. This was with a 138 kbit song. It's pretty long to mp3 performance that was 0 to 1 % on that machine for a 128 kbit song. Also vorbis seems to have a larger working set, because if I play two songs at once the util goes up to 10 %. For mp3s I can play 2 streams with 1 % util per stream. If I play 3 mp3 streams the util goes up for mp3s also. The working set is important using vorbis for multistreaming (to conserve audio memory footprint in a game for example) The tests were done using dsound output plugin (wave out used 10 % cpu for mp3) on a Windows 2000 operating system with 64 mb memory. Keep up the good work!! --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
At 03:12 PM 10/16/01 +0200, you wrote:>I did some testing of vorbis codec (Winamp plugin) on a Pentium 166 MMX, and >found that the performance is pretty good. I got 3 % cpu utisization if I >turned dithering off, and 5 % otherwise. This was with a 138 kbit song. It's >pretty long to mp3 performance that was 0 to 1 % on that machine for a 128 >kbit song.These figures (both for mp3 and for vorbis) are way, way too low to even be vaguely correct. Your measurement techniques are probably suspect, playing more things at once probably just happens to make them get closer to reality. Michael --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
I thought so to. The same machine used to play mp3s at 10 % a couple of years ago. But the new winamp decoder seems to rock pretty much. I measure the util in task manager, and when I play mp3s winamp cpu time is lower than ICQ for example (cpu time being the amount of time spent in winamp). Also I have a vortex 2 soundcard, so the mixing should be done in hardware. Using wave out as output cpu util goes way up. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Smith [mailto:msmith@labyrinth.net.au] Sent: den 16 oktober 2001 15:19 To: vorbis@xiph.org Subject: Re: [vorbis] Performance tests At 03:12 PM 10/16/01 +0200, you wrote:>I did some testing of vorbis codec (Winamp plugin) on a Pentium 166 MMX,and>found that the performance is pretty good. I got 3 % cpu utisization if I >turned dithering off, and 5 % otherwise. This was with a 138 kbit song.It's>pretty long to mp3 performance that was 0 to 1 % on that machine for a 128 >kbit song.These figures (both for mp3 and for vorbis) are way, way too low to even be vaguely correct. Your measurement techniques are probably suspect, playing more things at once probably just happens to make them get closer to reality. Michael --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Erik Olofsson wrote:> I did some testing of vorbis codec (Winamp plugin) on a Pentium 166 MMX, and > found that the performance is pretty good. I got 3 % cpu utisization if I > turned dithering off, and 5 % otherwise. This was with a 138 kbit song. It's > pretty long to mp3 performance that was 0 to 1 % on that machine for a 128 > kbit song.As Michael pointed out, this seems quite low. My rough tests were showing 30-40% CPU use w/ Pentium 166 decoding ogg. --- Stan Seibert --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
I will do some additional testing later today to assert this. Do you have any suggestions as to what decoders etc I should use? -----Original Message----- From: volsung@asu.edu [mailto:volsung@asu.edu] Sent: den 16 oktober 2001 16:04 To: 'vorbis@xiph.org' Subject: Re: [vorbis] Performance tests On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Erik Olofsson wrote:> I did some testing of vorbis codec (Winamp plugin) on a Pentium 166 MMX,and> found that the performance is pretty good. I got 3 % cpu utisization if I > turned dithering off, and 5 % otherwise. This was with a 138 kbit song.It's> pretty long to mp3 performance that was 0 to 1 % on that machine for a 128 > kbit song.As Michael pointed out, this seems quite low. My rough tests were showing 30-40% CPU use w/ Pentium 166 decoding ogg. --- Stan Seibert --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
On 2001.10.16 15:12:01 +0200 Erik Olofsson wrote:> I did some testing of vorbis codec (Winamp plugin) on a Pentium 166 MMX, > and > found that the performance is pretty good. I got 3 % cpu utisization if I > turned dithering off, and 5 % otherwise. This was with a 138 kbit song. > It's > pretty long to mp3 performance that was 0 to 1 % on that machine for a > 128 > kbit song.How the /sbin/f*sck.ext2 -f did you manage to do that? MP3 eats about 30% of my Pentium 233 MMX, and Vorbis about 50%. I looked through every possible configuration option in Winamp, but I couldn't find any way to improve performance. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Hongli Lai (hongli@telekabel.nl) wrote :> On 2001.10.16 15:12:01 +0200 Erik Olofsson wrote: > > I did some testing of vorbis codec (Winamp plugin) on a Pentium 166 MMX, > > and > > found that the performance is pretty good. I got 3 % cpu utisization if I > > turned dithering off, and 5 % otherwise. This was with a 138 kbit song. > > It's > > pretty long to mp3 performance that was 0 to 1 % on that machine for a > > 128 > > kbit song. > > How the /sbin/f*sck.ext2 -f did you manage to do that? > MP3 eats about 30% of my Pentium 233 MMX, and Vorbis about 50%. > I looked through every possible configuration option in Winamp, but I > couldn't find any way to improve performance.If you use DirectSound-out instead of WAVEout the CPU usage drops. At least Task Manager shows it that way. Once Task Manager ( on w2k-SP2 ) showed 50% CPU usage on the graph, but 2 % in the status bar ( the bottom line in the window ) for several minutes. So much about its accuracy ... Do not use top under linux either ! -- David Balazic -------------- "Be excellent to each other." - Bill S. Preston, Esq., & "Ted" Theodore Logan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Beeing on Windows I was not able to perform this test. So I coded a program
that measures the time it takes to loop 160 000 000 times and compare it to
a calibration run. This seems to work very well.
Winamp 2.77 on p166 MMX:
MP3 128 kbit: 20 % util with dsound, 16 % util with NULL output
OGG 138 kbit: 27 % util with dsound, 21 % util with NULL output
OGG 66 kbit: 26 % util with dsound, 20 % util with NULL output
Winamp 2.77 on dual p3 800:
OGG 138 kbit: 2.5 % util with dsound or 5 % for one processor
OGG 138 kbit: 2.2 % util with null or 4.5 % for one processor
MP3 128 kbit: 1.5% with dsound or 3 % for one processor
MP3 128 kbit: 1% with null or 2 % for one processor
The p3 800 has so low util that It may very well be a high error. I run two
instances of my program to measure on a dual system
Here is the relevant code:
#pragma optimize( "", off)
void CCpuUsageDlg::OnCalibrare()
{
SetPriorityClass(GetCurrentProcess(), REALTIME_PRIORITY_CLASS);
// Let Priority kick in
for (__int64 i = 0; i < 160000000; ++i)
{
}
LARGE_INTEGER CpuUsage;
LARGE_INTEGER CpuSpeed;
LARGE_INTEGER CpuStart;
QueryPerformanceFrequency(&CpuSpeed);
QueryPerformanceCounter(&CpuUsage);
__int64 CpuEnd = CpuUsage.QuadPart + CpuSpeed.QuadPart * 10;
QueryPerformanceCounter(&CpuStart);
for (i = 0; i < 160000000; ++i)
{
}
QueryPerformanceCounter(&CpuUsage);
Iterspersec = __int64 ((double)i / (((double)CpuUsage.QuadPart -
(double)CpuStart.QuadPart)/(double)CpuSpeed.QuadPart));
CString Str;
Str.Format("%i64 iterspersec", Iterspersec);
m_Text.SetWindowText(Str);
SetPriorityClass(GetCurrentProcess(), IDLE_PRIORITY_CLASS);
}
void CCpuUsageDlg::OnMeasure()
{
LARGE_INTEGER CpuUsage;
LARGE_INTEGER CpuSpeed;
LARGE_INTEGER CpuStart;
while (1)
{
QueryPerformanceFrequency(&CpuSpeed);
QueryPerformanceCounter(&CpuUsage);
__int64 CpuEnd = CpuUsage.QuadPart + CpuSpeed.QuadPart * 10;
QueryPerformanceCounter(&CpuStart);
for (__int64 i = 0; i < 160000000; ++i)
{
}
QueryPerformanceCounter(&CpuUsage);
__int64 Iterspersec2 = __int64 ((double)i /
(((double)CpuUsage.QuadPart -
(double)CpuStart.QuadPart)/(double)CpuSpeed.QuadPart));
CString Str;
Str.Format("%f cpu usage", (float)(100.0 -
((double)Iterspersec2 / (double)Iterspersec * 100.0)));
m_Text.SetWindowText(Str);
m_Text.UpdateWindow();
}
}
#pragma optimize( "", on)
-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Arnold [mailto:ken@arnoldnet.net]
Sent: den 17 oktober 2001 03:36
To: vorbis@xiph.org
Subject: Re: [vorbis] Performance tests
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 09:17:03PM -0400, safemode
wrote:> On Tuesday 16 October 2001 20:50, Jack Moffitt wrote:
> > This is slightly wrong. decoder_example is slow. vorbisfile_example
is
> > much faster, because of the inline asm that does float->int
conversion.
> >
> > use vorbisfile_example, since that's also what most players use.
> >
> > jack.
>
> Why bother comparing to mp3 decoding? Why not just compare against ogg
> decoding and try to keep lowering the number? Does ogg vorbis need mp3 to
> prove something? I dont think it should. mp3 should not be a factor in
any > ogg testing except audio output. mp3 decoders dont use one libmp3 like
all > ogg decoders use libogg. and mpg123 is far from the fastest. It's
best
just > to stay away from mp3 comparisons.
Agreed for both your and Jack's comments. I had forgotten that
decoder_example was different, having not used any of the example code
in nearly a year. Repeating my earlier test, vorbisfile_example gives
7.440 seconds for the same file.
People seemed to want to compare Vorbis to MP3. According to others,
and my understanding pretty much agrees, Vorbis is about as
computationally complex as MP3, so it should be theoretically as fast
as MP3 for decoding. That's ignoring the hand-tuned assembly that has
gone into many MP3 decoders and not Vorbis, so I find the present
numbers fairly impressive. I think those interested in comparisons
should wait until the codec is finalized and speed tuning really
becomes an issue (i.e. right before 1.0) and try these same tests
again then.
--
Kenneth Arnold <ken@arnoldnet.net>
- "Know thyself."
--- >8 ----
List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.