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-dev/2013-March/003856.html Really, great stuff ;)> I think if you are setting CFLAGS you need to include also the > optimizations flags, e.g. "-m32 -O3 -funroll-loops" to match the > default CFLAGS.Oh, I thought I was appending flags. Anyway, thanks, that solved the problem. I didn't know compiler flags could make such an enormous difference. It will take me a few hours to rerun the test however.
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 HydrogenAudio: > http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2013-March/003856.html > > Really, great stuff ;) > >> I think if you are setting CFLAGS you need to include also the >> optimizations flags, e.g. "-m32 -O3 -funroll-loops" to match the >> default CFLAGS. > Oh, I thought I was appending flags. Anyway, thanks, that solved the > problem. I didn't know compiler flags could make such an enormous > difference. It will take me a few hours to rerun the test however. > > _______________________________________________ > flac-dev mailing list > flac-dev at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev >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.
On 28-05-13 20:09, Janne Hyv?rinen 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 my tests, it took a little longer because I couldn't believe the results I got. However, they are perfectly reproducible (on my system at least), so I guess I'll have to believe them. In the linked PDFs is first a test with the average of 5 CDs and second the graph of only one of those 5. It is clearly visible that the 'speed ranking' for each compression setting match very closely, so the accuracy is probably pretty high. I did this comparison on Kubuntu 12.10 64-bit. http://www.icer.nl/misc_stuff/All tracks.pdf http://www.icer.nl/misc_stuff/Coldplay - Parachutes.pdf 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 optimizations work very well on encoding, but actually slow things down when decoding. The difference is not very large however. Anyway, I think I'm convinced now that my lossless codec comparison was valid and I can keep running codecs through wine. I should probably run all of them through wine just for the sake of clarity.