Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: lame benchmarks (pun intended)  (Read 21823 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PiruTopic starter

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
    • Show only replies by Piru
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #44 on: February 02, 2012, 10:23:40 PM »
Quote from: kas1e;678855
Doesn't mean much. I also have some stuff which have altivec insturctions inside, but still, that piece of code unused in the necessary place. In the readme to that archive a lot to say about mess with altivec, so it can be not suprise that its just broken, disabled and not works.
Did you read the readme? Here's the relevant part highlighted by me:
Quote
Unfortunately the people who tested the Altivec version for me did not have
any success, and therefore this upload only includes a generic PPC version
of 3.98.4, and Stephan Rupprecht's prior 3.98.2 G4 build.
The archive has 3 lame binaries:
Code: [Select]
[generic]               197665  411156  48.1% -lh5- 3de4 Oct  6  2010 lame-398-4/bin/lame
[generic]                50969  168764  30.2% -lh5- 9a1e Oct  6  2010 lame-398-4/bin/lame-shared
[generic]               322281  710768  45.3% -lh5- 2952 Sep 26  2008 lame-398-4/bin/lame.g4-3.98.2
The first two are the non-altivec builds (one static and the other using SObjs/libmp3lame.so).

The third is the old (26-sep-2008) - altivec enabled - build by Stephan Rupprecht, included as-is.

The same is confirmed here as well:
Quote
In any case, no-one loses anything. 3.98.4 for generic PPC, new libmp3lame which was always generic, and the prior 3.98.2 for altivec is in here. Win-win.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 10:36:03 PM by Piru »
 

Offline wawrzon

Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #45 on: February 02, 2012, 10:41:27 PM »
Quote from: Karlos;678859
I realise it's a bit off topic

at least on blender test my i7 rig fits the expectations 00:39.26. so that might be a more dependable benchmark-
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #46 on: February 02, 2012, 10:45:00 PM »
Quote from: wawrzon;678863
at least on blender test my i7 rig fits the expectations 00:39.26. so that might be a more dependable benchmark-


How is it with one thread?
int p; // A
 

Offline wawrzon

Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #47 on: February 02, 2012, 10:52:18 PM »
is there a way to influence it?
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #48 on: February 02, 2012, 10:56:11 PM »
Quote from: wawrzon;678866
is there a way to influence it?


I seem to recall an option in the render settings somewhere for the number of threads, which seemed to be set to 4 on my quad core. Probably be 8 on yours if it is counting logical cores.
int p; // A
 

Offline Tuxedo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 57
    • Show only replies by Tuxedo
    • http://None at the moment
Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #49 on: February 02, 2012, 10:57:42 PM »
@Piru

I tryed all the lame versions on hte archive from OS4Depot and get:

for Lame-G4 : 23 secs

for lame/lameSHARED : 40 secs

So the lame G4 that was 3.98.2 intead of 3.98.4 of the other 2 compiles seems to have AltiVec enabled...
Now have to see wich version was used on X1000...

EDIT:

I tryed the lame vmx from aminet under MOS 2.7 on my Peg2@1131 and GOT:

LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
 10529/10529 (100%)|    0:24/    0:24|    0:25/    0:25|   11.077x|    0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        MS  %     long switch short %
  128.0      100.0        76.1  13.4  10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 11:11:26 PM by Tuxedo »
 

Offline PiruTopic starter

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
    • Show only replies by Piru
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #50 on: February 02, 2012, 11:19:22 PM »
Quote from: Tuxedo;678869
@Piru

I tryed all the lame versions on hte archive from OS4Depot and get:

for Lame-G4 : 23 secs

for lame/lameSHARED : 40 secs
Indeed. Now, would Hans_ & kas1e please figure this thing out already? OS4 *does* have altivec enabled lame.
 

Offline Tuxedo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 57
    • Show only replies by Tuxedo
    • http://None at the moment
Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #51 on: February 02, 2012, 11:22:40 PM »
@Piru

the problem was only if the X1000 test author have used the G4 version...
 

Offline PiruTopic starter

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
    • Show only replies by Piru
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #52 on: February 02, 2012, 11:46:33 PM »
Quote from: Tuxedo;678873
@Piru

the problem was only if the X1000 test author have used the G4 version...

Why else would he claim he did use the altivec version?
 

Offline wawrzon

Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #53 on: February 02, 2012, 11:52:31 PM »
Quote from: Karlos;678867
I seem to recall an option in the render settings somewhere for the number of threads, which seemed to be set to 4 on my quad core. Probably be 8 on yours if it is counting logical cores.


ah, didnt knoew one needs to set it manually within the app like on on lightwave. another thing amiga has introduced in advance. lol. so may previous result was with one thread since this is default, with 8 i get the picture done in 00:08.80
 

Offline Hans_

Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #54 on: February 02, 2012, 11:57:44 PM »
Quote from: Piru;678871
Indeed. Now, would Hans_ & kas1e please figure this thing out already? OS4 *does* have altivec enabled lame.
I heard you the first time when you pointed out that the old g4 version was in the archive (which I completely overlooked).

In the meantime I got tired of waiting, so here are my A1-X1000 lame results for aksack.wav:
Code: [Select]
5.RAM Disk:> lame aksack.wav
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding aksack.wav to aksack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
 10529/10529 (100%)|    0:29/    0:29|    0:30/    0:30|   9.2340x|    0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        MS  %     long switch short %                                  
  128.0      100.0        76.1  13.4  10.5                                    
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB

5.RAM Disk:> lame.g4-3.98.2 aksack.wav
LAME 3.98.2 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16537 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding aksack.wav to aksack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
 10529/10529 (100%)|    0:17/    0:17|    0:18/    0:18|   16.010x|    0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        MS  %     long switch short %                                  
  128.0      100.0        76.1  13.4  10.5                                    
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB

5.RAM Disk:> data:
5.Data:> lame aksack.wav          
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding aksack.wav to aksack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
 10529/10529 (100%)|    0:30/    0:30|    0:31/    0:31|   8.9321x|    0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        MS  %     long switch short %                                  
  128.0      100.0        76.1  13.4  10.5                                    
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB

5.Data:> lame.g4-3.98.2 aksack.wav
LAME 3.98.2 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16537 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding aksack.wav to aksack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
 10529/10529 (100%)|    0:17/    0:17|    0:17/    0:17|   16.010x|    0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        MS  %     long switch short %                                  
  128.0      100.0        76.1  13.4  10.5                                    
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB

Hans
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 12:06:46 AM by Hans_ »
Join the Kea Campus - upgrade your skills; support my work; enjoy the Amiga corner.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - see more of my work
 

Offline PiruTopic starter

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
    • Show only replies by Piru
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #55 on: February 03, 2012, 12:02:40 AM »
@Hans_

Thank you. Nothing wrong with the results as we can see.

Also, the scalar results are rather interesting. Here's the result from my Mac mini G4 1.5GHz (first scalar, then altivec):

Code: [Select]
2·Ram Disk:T% showconfig
SYSTEM:     PowerMac10,2
REGISTERED: Harry Sintonen
PROCESSOR:  7447A (G4) (V1.5) 1500MHz (FSB 166MHz)
VERSION:    MorphOS version 2.7, Ambient version 1.43, Kickstart version 51.37
RAM:        Node type $8A, Attributes $1505 (FAST), at $20000CA8-$5CD8D000 (~973.5 meg)
BOARDS:
 Vendor $106B Device $0034 Apple Computer Inc., UniNorth 2 AGP
 Vendor $1002 Device $5962 ATI Technologies Inc, RV280 [Radeon 9200]
 Vendor $14E4 Device $4318 Broadcom Corporation, BCM4318 [AirForce One 54g] 802.11g Wireless LAN Controller
 Vendor $106B Device $003F Apple Computer Inc., KeyLargo/Intrepid USB
 Vendor $1033 Device $0035 NEC Corporation, USB
 Vendor $1033 Device $0035 NEC Corporation, USB
 Vendor $1033 Device $00E0 NEC Corporation, USB 2.0
 Vendor $106B Device $003B Apple Computer Inc., UniNorth/Intrepid ATA/100
 Vendor $106B Device $0031 Apple Computer Inc., UniNorth 2 FireWire
 Vendor $106B Device $0032 Apple Computer Inc., UniNorth 2 GMAC (Sun GEM)
2·Ram Disk:T% lame_ppc AKsack.wav
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
 10529/10529 (100%)|    [b]0:24[/b]/    [b]0:24[/b]|    [b]0:24[/b]/    [b]0:24[/b]|   11.086x|    0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        MS  %     long switch short %
  128.0      100.0        76.1  13.4  10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
2·Ram Disk:T% lame_vmx AKsack.wav
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
 10529/10529 (100%)|    [b]0:16[/b]/    [b]0:16[/b]|    [b]0:16[/b]/    [b]0:16[/b]|   16.362x|    0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        MS  %     long switch short %
  128.0      100.0        76.1  13.4  10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB

/me pats the Mac mini G4 & PowerBook G4 ;-)
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 12:36:44 AM by Piru »
 

Offline haywirepc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2009
  • Posts: 1331
    • Show only replies by haywirepc
Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #56 on: February 03, 2012, 12:46:33 AM »
Where can I find a windows binary of this lame encoder? Looked but only found source tarballs. I'd like to run this test on a windows and linux machine and see the results and how they stack up against x1000 on quad core and 6 core intel machines.

Steven
 

Offline jorkany

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2006
  • Posts: 1009
    • Show only replies by jorkany
    • http://www.amigaos4.com
Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #57 on: February 03, 2012, 01:00:14 AM »
Quote from: haywirepc;678881
Where can I find a windows binary of this lame encoder? Looked but only found source tarballs. I'd like to run this test on a windows and linux machine and see the results and how they stack up against x1000 on quad core and 6 core intel machines.

Steven


Right here brah:
http://lame.sourceforge.net/links.php#Windows

No command line. There's a couple there that appear to be lame with a GUI frontend, but all the rest incorporate lame as programmatic interface and seem to use lame as just one step in their processing.
 

Offline ami_stuff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 100
    • Show only replies by ami_stuff
Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #58 on: February 03, 2012, 01:07:47 AM »
Quote from: haywirepc;678881
Where can I find a windows binary of this lame encoder? Looked but only found source tarballs. I'd like to run this test on a windows and linux machine and see the results and how they stack up against x1000 on quad core and 6 core intel machines.

Steven

http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php


Athlon XP 2600+ :)

Quote
C:\>lame AKsack.wav
LAME 3.99.4 32bits (http://lame.sf.net)
CPU features: MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SSE (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
 10529/10529 (100%)|    0:16/    0:16|    0:16/    0:16|   16.975x|    0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        MS  %     long switch short %
  128.0      100.0        74.4  13.4  12.2
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 01:16:40 AM by ami_stuff »
 

Offline koaftder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2004
  • Posts: 2116
    • Show only replies by koaftder
    • http://koft.net
Re: lame benchmarks (pun intended)
« Reply #59 from previous page: February 03, 2012, 01:20:22 AM »
Code: [Select]
LAME 3.99.4 64bits (http://lame.sf.net)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
    Frame          |  CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU |    ETA
 10529/10529 (100%)|    0:05/    0:05|    0:05/    0:05|   52.606x|    0:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   kbps        MS  %     long switch short %
  128.0      100.0        74.4  13.4  12.2

Code: [Select]
Hardware:

    Hardware Overview:

      Model Name: iMac
      Model Identifier: iMac11,3
      Processor Name: Intel Core i7
      Processor Speed: 2.93 GHz
      Number of Processors: 1
      Total Number of Cores: 4
      L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
      L3 Cache: 8 MB
      Memory: 8 GB
      Processor Interconnect Speed: 4.8 GT/s
      Boot ROM Version: IM112.0057.B00
      SMC Version (system): 1.59f2
      Serial Number (system): xxxxxxx
      Hardware UUID: xxxxxx

Code: [Select]
Software:

    System Software Overview:

      System Version: Mac OS X 10.7.2 (11C74)
      Kernel Version: Darwin 11.2.0