View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
gx-x Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2539
|
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
amra wrote: | I only remember nagscreens. ;P
And I'm sorry... to me it makes no sense to warez a software when a similar one does the job for free. I'm a lazy jerk, warezing is too much fuzz for me.
Every new version the same crap, I'm done with that (99% .
But yeah I rarely have any kind of rar archives crossing my lines, maybe because of exactly that. And then 7zip always did its job.
If winrar would be opensource and free like 7zip... totally yes... why not see again, which finishes the tests best.
There is just a difference of all day habits on programs we got used to for various reasons. |
I have 7zip installed installed, it's not bad at all but I run into issues with some archives from time to time so I don't really use it.
As for speed, I really don't care, I have i5 @3.8GHz, it takes ~10 seconds to unpack a 4GB with winRAR, I am pretty sure that even if there are faster apps, it wouldn't make much of a difference. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Csimbi Elite Member
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Posts: 4775 Location: The bright side of the dark side
|
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gx-x wrote: | amra wrote: | I only remember nagscreens. ;P
And I'm sorry... to me it makes no sense to warez a software when a similar one does the job for free. I'm a lazy jerk, warezing is too much fuzz for me.
Every new version the same crap, I'm done with that (99% .
But yeah I rarely have any kind of rar archives crossing my lines, maybe because of exactly that. And then 7zip always did its job.
If winrar would be opensource and free like 7zip... totally yes... why not see again, which finishes the tests best.
There is just a difference of all day habits on programs we got used to for various reasons. |
I have 7zip installed installed, it's not bad at all but I run into issues with some archives from time to time so I don't really use it.
As for speed, I really don't care, I have i5 @3.8GHz, it takes ~10 seconds to unpack a 4GB with winRAR, I am pretty sure that even if there are faster apps, it wouldn't make much of a difference. |
Actually, unpacking requires very little processor speed. It needs a fast disk (SSD) and possibly a lot of RAM for write caching. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
heretic Site Admin
Joined: 27 May 2004 Posts: 2744
|
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
gx-x Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2539
|
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Csimbi wrote: | gx-x wrote: | amra wrote: | I only remember nagscreens. ;P
And I'm sorry... to me it makes no sense to warez a software when a similar one does the job for free. I'm a lazy jerk, warezing is too much fuzz for me.
Every new version the same crap, I'm done with that (99% .
But yeah I rarely have any kind of rar archives crossing my lines, maybe because of exactly that. And then 7zip always did its job.
If winrar would be opensource and free like 7zip... totally yes... why not see again, which finishes the tests best.
There is just a difference of all day habits on programs we got used to for various reasons. |
I have 7zip installed installed, it's not bad at all but I run into issues with some archives from time to time so I don't really use it.
As for speed, I really don't care, I have i5 @3.8GHz, it takes ~10 seconds to unpack a 4GB with winRAR, I am pretty sure that even if there are faster apps, it wouldn't make much of a difference. |
Actually, unpacking requires very little processor speed. It needs a fast disk (SSD) and possibly a lot of RAM for write caching. |
Of course it depends on the disk/drive, but the whole algorithm is run on CPU and then transferred from memory to permanent storage.
as you can see here for example: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4170-core-i3-3220-benchmarks,3314-5.html
there are differences even between packers (winzip being the worst) so it's not just speed of your storage device. Also, try "StuffIt" (there is a trial version), it's probably the best compression ratio out there but it takes a lot of time and it's very CPU demanding.
PS. in winRAR benchmark (it's not using memory as storage) my i3 is getting around 3MB/s and i5 is getting 4.5MB/s so SSD would be a total overkill with it's 400MB/s potential. CPU does play a big role in unpacking, try it for yourself.
You could have some archives that were created just for the sake of splitting files into smaller pieces that use no compression at all, in that case, yes, SSD will come into play over a regular HDD. IF you are unpacking or packing something and using best compression, then it won't matter much. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Csimbi Elite Member
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Posts: 4775 Location: The bright side of the dark side
|
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
You said 'unpacking' not 'packing'.
Packing is processor-intensive, yes. In addition, packing benefits well from CL7 RAMs, so a slower processor can beat a faster one in this game if the faster processor has slower RAM (CL9 or more). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gx-x Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2539
|
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Csimbi wrote: | You said 'unpacking' not 'packing'.
Packing is processor-intensive, yes. In addition, packing benefits well from CL7 RAMs, so a slower processor can beat a faster one in this game if the faster processor has slower RAM (CL9 or more). |
unpacking also needs CPU, if it didn't It would not take ~2-3 minutes to unpack ~4GB it would take 10-15 seconds with SSD, but it doesn't.
PS. I tried to find unpacking benchs but I couldn't find any. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Csimbi Elite Member
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Posts: 4775 Location: The bright side of the dark side
|
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
gx-x wrote: | Csimbi wrote: | You said 'unpacking' not 'packing'.
Packing is processor-intensive, yes. In addition, packing benefits well from CL7 RAMs, so a slower processor can beat a faster one in this game if the faster processor has slower RAM (CL9 or more). |
unpacking also needs CPU, if it didn't It would not take ~2-3 minutes to unpack ~4GB it would take 10-15 seconds with SSD, but it doesn't.
PS. I tried to find unpacking benchs but I couldn't find any. |
It does. But only a fraction (2-3%). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gx-x Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2539
|
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Csimbi wrote: | gx-x wrote: | Csimbi wrote: | You said 'unpacking' not 'packing'.
Packing is processor-intensive, yes. In addition, packing benefits well from CL7 RAMs, so a slower processor can beat a faster one in this game if the faster processor has slower RAM (CL9 or more). |
unpacking also needs CPU, if it didn't It would not take ~2-3 minutes to unpack ~4GB it would take 10-15 seconds with SSD, but it doesn't.
PS. I tried to find unpacking benchs but I couldn't find any. |
It does. But only a fraction (2-3%). |
I have to illustrate this so her it goes:
1.Barton 3200 unpacking 4GB to SSD
2. i3 or amd 8xxx unpacking to SSD
would there be difference?
... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Csimbi Elite Member
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Posts: 4775 Location: The bright side of the dark side
|
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, there would not be.
Both of those CPUs are too fast the SSD's read/write speeds.
You'd need to read and write at least 1Gbytes/sec (or even more) for those CPUs to even "feel" it.
See it for yourself.
Open the task manager and watch the CPUs while you are unpacking. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gx-x Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2539
|
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Csimbi wrote: | No, there would not be.
Both of those CPUs are too fast the SSD's read/write speeds.
You'd need to read and write at least 1Gbytes/sec (or even more) for those CPUs to even "feel" it.
See it for yourself.
Open the task manager and watch the CPUs while you are unpacking. |
well then, here is food for thought for you:
...as you can see, there is quite obviously a difference between CPUs while EXTRACTING.
As for usage, I just extracted a 18GB game from rar, usage was on average 22% on i5 on all cores, with spikes to ~50% (probably something else caused them), it took ~7 minutes.
I can definitely notice a speed improvement over i3. I say this because I watch episodes of series and I watch them from RARs directly (temporary unpacking) and they unpack faster by some 20% I'd say. It's faster enough for me to notice. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Csimbi Elite Member
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Posts: 4775 Location: The bright side of the dark side
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2015 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd think that those include cache management and I/O - not the actual CPU power consumed by WinRAR. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gx-x Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2539
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2015 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Csimbi wrote: | I'd think that those include cache management and I/O - not the actual CPU power consumed by WinRAR. |
meaning what? It shows that faster and newer CPUs extract faster, it doesn't matter how, we are not discussing power and I/O here. Here, one more test, shows time in seconds:
My claim was that CPU makes difference in extraction time and it matters, it still needs to do the work. It's not a high load work, granted, but the efficiency of the CPU matters. Most of these don't even reach the full HDD speeds during extraction so SSD would be irrelevant. Some of these reviewers even used RAM Disk for the test. I think it's from this last one, not sure. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Csimbi Elite Member
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Posts: 4775 Location: The bright side of the dark side
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sure. Faster CPUs allow for faster I/O. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2666 phpBB Group
|
|