Good news!

From: Mattias Hermansson (mattias@hemmet.chalmers.se)
Date: Thu Mar 02 2000 - 11:19:12 PST

  • Next message: Kazuyoshi NAGASAKA: "How to install Compaq fortran v1.0"

    Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 20:19:12 +0100 (CET)
    From: Mattias Hermansson <mattias@hemmet.chalmers.se>
    Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0003021928350.943-100000@glutus.hemmet.chalmers.se>
    Subject: Good news!
    

    I compiled lame 3.51 with ccc. The speedincrease was exceptional, more
    than 3 times the speed of gcc. That's how it's supposed to be. Look here:

    # ./lame -f cdda.wav
    LAME version 3.51 (www.sulaco.org/mp3)
    GPSYCHO: GPL psycho-acoustic model version 0.74.
    Encoding cdda.wav to cdda.wav.mp3
    Encoding as 44.1 kHz 128 kbps j-stereo MPEG1 LayerIII file
        Frame | CPU/estimated | time/estimated | play/CPU | ETA
      8226/ 8226(100%)| 0:00:27/ 0:00:27| 0:00:28/ 0:00:28| 7.9993| 0:00:00

    on my 21164a@600. gcc only does so good:

    # lame cdda.wav
    LAME version 3.51 (www.sulaco.org/mp3)
    GPSYCHO: GPL psycho-acoustic model version 0.74.
    Encoding cdda.wav to cdda.wav.mp3
    Encoding as 44.1 kHz 128 kbps j-stereo MPEG1 LayerIII file
        Frame | CPU/estimated | time/estimated | play/CPU | ETA
      8226/ 8226(100%)| 0:01:35/ 0:01:35| 0:01:36/ 0:01:36| 2.2744| 0:00:00

    gcc using full optimization and ccc only -g3. Unfortunately the ccc binary
    only works with fast and not with normal/high quality encoding. The gcc
    otoh doesn't work in fast mode, so the comparisons isn't very accurate,
    but they indicate that ccc is MUCH better than gcc. Thank you Compaq!

    /Mattias



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.0 : Mon Jun 04 2001 - 04:18:03 PDT