Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "168x".
Did you mean:
168
2005 Feb 28
4
memory usage
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 19:42 -0500, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> > jean-marc: i think we can remove spx_sig_t *orig.
> > but am not sure about exc2Buf. is it for extension?
>
> orig is already removed in SVN (which you should probably use). As for
> exc2, it can be removed, but I'm not sure if you can just use exc
> instead (maybe yes).
>
when removing "spx_sig_t
2005 Mar 01
0
memory usage
...r stack size of 4058 bytes.
>The encoder is next..
>
>
It will probably be very close, if you can do it.
I did a bunch of tests of encoder performance (on an Athlon XP 1700+) a
while back, and found that, for 8kbps CBR complexity 1, I got:
(encode/decode speed)
basic compile: 29.2x / 168x
-O3 -ffast-math -funroll-all-loops
-march=pentium3 -fprefetch-loop-arrays -fsingle-precision-constant:
53.4x / 361x
With -msse: 65x/386x
The actual numbers don't matter much, but it does mean that encoding is
almost 6x as expensive as decoding, so expect that you're going to use
60-9...