IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Ogg Vorbis acceleration project, Is it dead?
lvqcl
post Jul 8 2012, 17:56
Post #176





Group: Developer
Posts: 3461
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



I took my old compiles and also compiled the sources with SSE4.1 instruction set. Then I took an album (57m 37s) and encoded it. Results (encoding time, in seconds):

32 bit:
SSE - 89.5 s
SSE2 - 72.2 s
SSE3 - 73.2 s
SSE4.1 - 72.1 s

64 bit:
SSE2 - 67.1 s
SSE3 - 66.5 s
SSE4.1 - 66.1 s

BTW, I also tested original Lancer from http://homepage3.nifty.com/blacksword/index.htm

SSE - 57.7 s
SSE2 - 53.2 s
SSE3 - 53.1 s

SSE2 MT - 35.9 s (71.6 s total process time)
SSE3 MT - 36.2 s (72.3 s total process time)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Jul 12 2012, 00:22
Post #177





Group: Members
Posts: 1167
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



Pink Floyd - The Wall 1:21:09 (CPU specs: http://i46.tinypic.com/110lytc.png)

(q5.0)

oggenc2.87-1.3.3-generic: Total encoding time: 0:29.874, 162.99x realtime

oggenc2.87-1.3.3-x64: Total encoding time: 0:17.067, 285.30x realtime

oggenc2.87-aoTuVb6.03-generic: Total encoding time: 0:31.949, 152.40x realtime

oggenc2.87-aoTuVb6.03-x64: Total encoding time: 0:18.236, 267.01x realtime

oggenc2.87-aoTuVb6.03-LancerSSE: Total encoding time: 0:18.330, 265.64x realtime

oggenc2.87-aoTuVb6.03-LancerSSE2: Total encoding time: 0:18.096, 269.07x realtime

oggenc2.87-aoTuVb6.03-LancerSSE3: Total encoding time: 0:18.439, 264.07x realtime

oggenc2.87-aoTuVb6.03-LancerSSE3_x64: Total encoding time: 0:13.994, 347.95x realtime

-

qaac_1.38 (V82): Total encoding time: 0:20.374, 238.99x realtime

NeroAACCodec-1.5.1 (Q0.48): Total encoding time: 0:19.313, 252.12x realtime

lame3.99.5 (V2): Total encoding time: 0:19.344, 251.71x realtime

lame3.99.5-64 (V2): Total encoding time: 0:17.643, 275.98x realtime

This post has been edited by eahm: Jul 12 2012, 00:56
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Jul 14 2012, 12:47
Post #178





Group: Developer
Posts: 3461
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



It seems that older versions (that require Intel DLLs) were faster than current. Also, SSE2_OLD version is as fast as before. (misconfigured compiler?..)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jul 14 2012, 14:06
Post #179


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3762
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Jul 14 2012, 12:47) *
It seems that older versions (that require Intel DLLs) were faster than current. Also, SSE2_OLD version is as fast as before. (misconfigured compiler?..)

The SSE2_OLD is actually configured in the same way as the SSE2 compile. Both are ICL 12.1 compiles. The only difference is that the OLD was compiled within VS2008 and the other within VS2010.


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brazil2
post Jul 15 2012, 11:20
Post #180





Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 9-May 10
Member No.: 80499



QUOTE (john33 @ Jul 14 2012, 15:06) *
The only difference is that the OLD was compiled within VS2008 and the other within VS2010.

Heh, newer doesn't always mean better wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Destroid
post Jul 22 2012, 10:07
Post #181





Group: Members
Posts: 555
Joined: 4-June 02
Member No.: 2220



After finally getting the 64-bit machine operational, I have some benches to add here (running i5-2600K [OC], 8GB, WinXP x64 SP2):

OggEnc 2.87 aoTuV b6.03 Lancer builds (-q 3 [126.2 kbps])
SSE2 ........ 74.13x
SSE2 old ... 98.84x
SSE3 ........ 74.13x
SSE3 x64 .. 107.83x


--------------------
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Jul 22 2012, 12:31
Post #182





Group: Developer
Posts: 3461
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



Could you test also SSE version?

This post has been edited by lvqcl: Jul 22 2012, 12:47
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Jul 22 2012, 14:58
Post #183





Group: Members
Posts: 1580
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (Destroid @ Jul 22 2012, 06:07) *
After finally getting the 64-bit machine operational, I have some benches to add here (running i5-2600K [OC], 8GB, WinXP x64 SP2):

i5 2500k or i7 2600k?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Destroid
post Jul 22 2012, 18:23
Post #184





Group: Members
Posts: 555
Joined: 4-June 02
Member No.: 2220



Ok, the results using Vorbis -q3 running on i5-2500K (OC'ed), 8GB, WinXP x64 SP2.

The encode rate and bitrate numbers come from the binaries themselves. To help make sense of which version I was running I included the binaries' date-stamps.
CODE
john33 (OggEnc 2.87 aoTuV b6.03, average bitrate 126.2 kbps, all builds Lancer except *)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generic* 40.2072 05/04/2011
P4* 65.8952 05/04/2011
SSE 71.8857 07/04/2012
SSE2 74.1321 07/04/2012
SSE2 (old) 98.8428 07/04/2012
SSE3 74.1321 07/04/2012
SSE3 x64 107.8285 07/04/2012


lvqcl Lancer (OggEnc 2.87 aoTuV b5.7, average bitrate 118.6 kbps)
------------------------------------------------------------------
SSE 87.8602 02/20/2012
SSE2 118.6113 02/20/2012
SSE2 x64 131.7904 02/20/2012
SSE3 112.9632 02/20/2012
SSE3 x64 124.8540 02/20/2012

Blacksword Lancer (OggEnc 2.83, aoTuV b5, average bitrate 118.0 kbps)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SSE 120.112743 11/09/2006
SSE2 131.673327 11/09/2006
SSE2 MT 200.035978 11/09/2006
SSE3 131.330713 11/09/2006
SSE3 MT 199.766456 11/09/2006


This post has been edited by Destroid: Jul 22 2012, 18:46


--------------------
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Jul 22 2012, 18:33
Post #185





Group: Developer
Posts: 3461
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



oggenc "02/20/2012" is based on aoTuV 5.7, not 6.03 wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Destroid
post Jul 22 2012, 18:47
Post #186





Group: Members
Posts: 555
Joined: 4-June 02
Member No.: 2220



blink.gif Fixed.

I got pretty confused with this many binaries.


--------------------
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Destroid
post Jul 22 2012, 20:02
Post #187





Group: Members
Posts: 555
Joined: 4-June 02
Member No.: 2220



(Time expired editing above post while typing...)

FYI, I noticed the SSE binary in the aoTuV b5.7 bundle (post #121) declared itself b6.03. Because the bitrate is consistent with the other compiles in the bundle I'm guessing it's just a typo.

It's worth mentioning that Vorbis doesn't have drastic bitrate variance when compiler options change. When I posted the average bitrate in the above table it really means each individual file had the same bitrate, respective of the builder+compiler.


--------------------
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Jul 22 2012, 20:27
Post #188





Group: Developer
Posts: 3461
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE
FYI, I noticed the SSE binary in the aoTuV b5.7 bundle (post #121) declared itself b6.03.

...That's strange. Thank you for the info.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AshenTech
post Oct 15 2012, 19:50
Post #189





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 11-November 08
Member No.: 62144



I was wondering if somebody whos got gcc could give us a compile with AVX or AVX+sse4/4.2a to test on bulldozer based chips.

apparently they fixed the AVX support with newer gcc versions http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=3912

would be interesting if it where possible to see how AVX would effect encode speeds if at all smile.gif (cant wait for them to also have FMA support)

thanks in advance to whoever gives us an avx build to play with wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sheh
post Oct 21 2012, 06:09
Post #190





Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 3-November 04
Member No.: 17971



Are the AoTuV b6.03 sources from post #117 mixed with Lancer?

For decoding only, are there major quality/bugfix differences between the current libvorbis/vorbisfile and what the latest "original" Lancer was based on (from late 2006)?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Oct 21 2012, 08:07
Post #191





Group: Developer
Posts: 3461
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (sheh @ Oct 21 2012, 09:09) *
Are the AoTuV b6.03 sources from post #117 mixed with Lancer?


Yes, but I tested only encoding part of these sources, and I'm not sure that decoding works properly.


QUOTE (sheh @ Oct 21 2012, 09:09) *
For decoding only, are there major quality/bugfix differences between the current libvorbis/vorbisfile and what the latest "original" Lancer was based on (from late 2006)?


See http://svn.xiph.org/trunk/vorbis/CHANGES (original Lancer is based on libvorbis 1.1.2).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sheh
post Oct 21 2012, 17:32
Post #192





Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 3-November 04
Member No.: 17971



It seems there are decoding related changes since then. Also things like "Corrections to the specification" or "Fix a numerical instability in the edge extrapolation filter" which I don't know if are relevant or not. smile.gif So staying with an old version isn't a good idea.

How did you do the merge? Comparing Lancer against AoTuV 5, then AoTuV 5 to 6, or libvorbis (and co.) 1.1.2 to 1.3.3, and patching in in unchanged parts?

Did you try creating new SSE code? If there are clear cases of calculations done on arrays, is it necessarily difficult?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AshenTech
post May 28 2013, 06:49
Post #193





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 11-November 08
Member No.: 62144



any chance of a compile with FMA support?

we cant get an intel compiler build with AVX support because intels compiler blocks non-intel chips from getting AVX code paths sadly, but FMA could have a beneficial effect on encode performance I would think smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Jun 1 2014, 12:33
Post #194





Group: Members
Posts: 474
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



Can we hope to see Oggenc Lancer Build based on aoTuV beta6.03 unified with Xiph.Org's libvorbis1.3.4?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hidn
post Jun 1 2014, 14:49
Post #195





Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17-April 08
Member No.: 52847



QUOTE
Ogg Vorbis acceleration project, Is it dead?

Yes. As vorbis himself. Xiph developing another codec "opus". Welcome, new abandonware. For people who support vorbis nothing remains except "thanks". Fate of many open source projects, lack of interest.

Tuning is boring? Start new project.

This post has been edited by hidn: Jun 1 2014, 14:53
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Jun 1 2014, 18:56
Post #196





Group: Members
Posts: 474
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



QUOTE (hidn @ Jun 1 2014, 11:49) *
QUOTE
Ogg Vorbis acceleration project, Is it dead?

Yes. As vorbis himself. Xiph developing another codec "opus". Welcome, new abandonware. For people who support vorbis nothing remains except "thanks". Fate of many open source projects, lack of interest.

Tuning is boring? Start new project.



How about wide hardware support? I'm not sure if the opus will get it even in next 2 years. That's nonsense (to close Vorbis project). Also AFAIK Opus has more targeting onto low latency and low bitrate (of course not without a cost of quality loses for simple file encoding at medium bitrates).

This post has been edited by Steve Forte Rio: Jun 1 2014, 18:59
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skamp
post Jun 1 2014, 19:42
Post #197





Group: Developer
Posts: 1453
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



1) Ogg Vorbis works very well in its current iteration;
2) Codec support these days is probably more software than "hardware".


--------------------
See my profile for measurements, tools and recommendations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th December 2014 - 03:46