[vorbis] Performance tests
ken at arnoldnet.net
Tue Oct 16 18:35:43 PDT 2001
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
Kenneth Arnold <ken at arnoldnet.net>
- "Know thyself."
<LI>application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20011016/f4d269c1/part-0001.obj
More information about the Vorbis