Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: fpaq0pv2 is here!

  1. #1
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    3,985
    Thanks
    377
    Thanked 353 Times in 141 Posts
    Too many comparisons with the old fpaq0p, so I decided to renew the program...

    Enjoy anyway!

    fpaq0pv2.zip (44 KB)


  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    611
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Thanks encode! However, this new version is even a little bit slower at decompression than previous
    Code:
             comp decomp (seconds) 
       fpaq0p: 4.3, 4.0 
    fpaq0p_v2: 3.7, 4.1 
     fpaqd_v2: 6.2, 3.5

  3. #3
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    3,985
    Thanks
    377
    Thanked 353 Times in 141 Posts
    Strange... Probably you should run a larger test!

  4. #4
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    3,985
    Thanks
    377
    Thanked 353 Times in 141 Posts
    By the way, which one is faster?

    Code:
        int y = (x <= xmid); 
        if (y) 
          x2 = xmid; 
        else 
          x1 = xmid + 1;
    or
    Code:
        int y = 0; 
        if (x <= xmid) { 
          y = 1; 
          x2 = xmid; 
        } 
        else 
          x1 = xmid + 1;

  5. #5
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Thanks Ilia!

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by encode
    By the way, which one is faster?
    The first one, as it gives the compiler a chance to optimize interim results (register, jump, etc.). In the second one, youre manually setting memory variables.

    Ultimately it depends on your compiler.

  7. #7
    Member chornobyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    ua/kiev
    Posts
    153
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    fpaq0pv2 is an enthropy coder right
    so if i somehow rearrange bytes in file
    but not change their number and proportion
    it will compress as good as the old one

  8. #8
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,565
    Thanks
    220
    Thanked 146 Times in 83 Posts
    I have set a new arithmetic engine that him far very from that of Matt Mahoney that it goes more to a speed of about two or three times and it doesn't have great applications hardware. I am making a will him/it and improving at the most possible. Currently I can compare him/it as resulted to Rings. With the new program that I will launch I hope soon I compress Enwik8-Enwik9 to around 25-30 MB/secs against the 8/12 of Rings with my Intel Core Duo 2. I hope to contain use of the memory in maximum 64 MB.

  9. #9
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Quick test...

    Test machine: Intel PIII @750 MHz, 512 MB RAM, Windows 2000 Pro SP4

    Timed with AcuTimer v1.2

    fpaq0pv2
    ENWIK8 > 61,280,398 bytes
    Elapsed Time: 00:00:41.110 (41.110 Seconds)

    ENWIK9 > 620,379,449 bytes
    Elapsed Time: 00:06:45.383 (405.383 Seconds)


    fpaq0p
    ENWIK8 > 61,457,810 bytes
    Elapsed Time: 00:00:48.213 (48.213 Seconds)

    ENWIK9 > 622,237,009 bytes
    Elapsed Time: 00:08:01.724 (481.724 Seconds)


    fpaq0m
    ENWIK8 > 61,389,879 bytes
    Elapsed Time: 00 00:00:57.843 (57.843 Seconds)

    ENWIK9 > 621,285,504 bytes
    Elapsed Time: 00 00:09:32.736 (572.736 Seconds)


    fpaqc
    ENWIK8 > 61,270,455 bytes
    Elapsed Time: 00:01:48.463 (108.463 Seconds)

    ENWIK9 > 620,278,358 bytes
    Elapsed Time: 00:17:59.498 (1079.498 Seconds)


    fpaq0mw
    ENWIK8 > 61,271,869 bytes
    Elapsed Time: 00:02:44.462 (164.462 Seconds)

    ENWIK9 > 618,959,309 bytes
    Elapsed Time: 00:27:17.943 (1637.943 Seconds)

  10. #10
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    @ Matt

    Will you be adding fpaq0pv2 and fpaq0mw to the LTCB?

  11. #11
    Expert
    Matt Mahoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Florida, USA
    Posts
    3,255
    Thanks
    306
    Thanked 779 Times in 486 Posts
    Oh yeah, I forgot

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •