Gameguru Mania Forum Index Gameguru Mania
Daily Gaming, Hardware, Software and Technology News
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
news | cheats | reviews | specials | hardware | demos | FLASH GAMES | about | links

GOG.com on RAR vs DRM [38739]
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Gameguru Mania Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gx-x
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2539

PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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% Wink.
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. Wink


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
View user's profile Send private message
Csimbi
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 4775
Location: The bright side of the dark side

PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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% Wink.
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. Wink


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
View user's profile Send private message
heretic
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 May 2004
Posts: 2744

PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gx-x
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2539

PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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% Wink.
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. Wink


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
View user's profile Send private message
Csimbi
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 4775
Location: The bright side of the dark side

PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
gx-x
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2539

PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Csimbi
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 4775
Location: The bright side of the dark side

PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
gx-x
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2539

PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Csimbi
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 4775
Location: The bright side of the dark side

PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
gx-x
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2539

PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Wink


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
View user's profile Send private message
Csimbi
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 4775
Location: The bright side of the dark side

PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2015 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd think that those include cache management and I/O - not the actual CPU power consumed by WinRAR.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gx-x
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2539

PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2015 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Csimbi
Elite Member
Elite Member


Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 4775
Location: The bright side of the dark side

PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure. Faster CPUs allow for faster I/O.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Gameguru Mania Forum Index -> News All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
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