Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New WinRAR version with built-in benchmark module

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 26, 2004 11:16:06 PM

<A HREF="http://www.rarlab.com/download.htm" target="_new">Download WinRAR from here</A>. <A HREF="http://www.rarlab.com/rarnew.htm" target="_new">And here's changelog.</A>

The reason why I'm posting about this WinRAR release is it's new benchmarking module. Currently WinRAR benchmarks published in many hardware websites are made with hand picked data. Benchmark results may vary depending on data selection. For example, THG use only a wav file for WinRAR benchmark, unlike other websites.

This new benchmark module should set a standard for WinRAR benchmarking. It generates result in kb/s. After processing 10 MB data it gives an average speed. This can be considered benchmark result.

<b><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/spitfire_x86/thgc/rarbench.htm..." target="_new">Here's THGC WinRAR benchmark chart</A></b>. Currently <b>gothitbycar</b> is leading the chart with <b>503 kb/s</b> (Athlon64 3200+)

Now everybody post your scores. Please report your system spec (cpu, mobo/chipset, ram, memory timing, cpu fsb./multiplier if overclocked) with score.

I got <b>266 kb/s</b> with my system. Here's my system spec.- AXP 1700+ oc'ed to 1800+ (11 x 138), nForce2 Ultra400, 2 x 256 MB Dual DDR (2.0-2-2-5), Maxtor D740X (40 GB, 7200 rpm, 2 MB)


----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Spitfire_x86 on 01/29/04 09:48 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 27, 2004 3:37:57 AM

well thats realy interesting!

well i tested mine out.. i had iTunes streaming off the net, but that was about it... you typical other programs of coarse.

I got 172 with and 198 with out the tunes.

wonder why mine is so much slower then yours.... think having dual monitors might be doing anything?

<b>on the verge of catastrophy (y1.999...k)</b>
ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro - WD 80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW
January 27, 2004 1:55:26 PM

Got 188 Kb/s on a P3/700 with 256Megs of RAM!!!
(PC at job)

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
Related resources
January 27, 2004 5:27:12 PM

got 315

My own beast: Athlon 2700xp+ (oc: 3200xp+ with 200fsb) , Radeon 9800pro (oc: 410/370) , 512mb ddr400. SO MUCH faster than my last computer (pIII 550......)
January 27, 2004 7:11:35 PM

I got 361 on a P4 2.4 OC 2 3.0 (5:4 mode)

Got a nice overclocked overvolted system to keep you warm at night? That's great. Guess I'll have to settle for a woman...
January 27, 2004 8:07:52 PM

Hey that's pretty cool!

I've heard of "WinRAR" before but never really paid much attention to it!

It seems to have quite a few good features.

Thanks!

My result is 412.

System is a stock system using standard BIOS values and clock speeds.

Asus SK8N Motherboard
Opteron 242 processor (Had to edit! It's NOT Operton)
512kb Kingston RAM



<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by jim552 on 01/27/04 05:09 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 27, 2004 8:37:10 PM

I got 206 KB/s. on Athlon 2500+. 1 GB DDR. 40GB Seagate Barracuda@7200
the score is low may be becoz i was downling 4 episodes of Sienfeld Simultaneously in Kazaa :-) ......

~AMD=RULES.PRESCOTT=4=FOOLS~
January 27, 2004 9:34:45 PM

Pentium-M 1.4 GHz: 277 kB/s (Dell Inspiron 500m, 512 MB DDR, 266 FSB)
Celeron 1.2 GHZ: 238 kB/s (ASUS TUV4X, 256 MB SDRAM, 100 FSB)

Megaherz is all that matters? Clearly indicates the Pentium-M is based on the Tualatin Pentium III.
January 27, 2004 9:51:12 PM

Seems that WinRAR like Opteron's on-die memory controller. It's a great score for 1.6 GHz Opteron. I always doubted THG WinRAR benchmark. In all other website except THG, Athlon 64 is quite a lot faster than P4. But THG shows P4 3.2 GHz faster than 2.2 GHz Athlon 64 3400+ in WinRAR. New WinRAR benchmark shows that THG is wrong.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
January 27, 2004 9:59:41 PM

I'm getting 220 with my system :frown:

Spec:
Intel P4 2.4B
MSI 645E Max-U Mobo
512MB DDR333
GF3 ti200 64MB
SB Live 5.1
WD 60GB
Maxtor 120GB
LG 24x24x32 CDR
WIN2K PRo SP4
January 27, 2004 10:40:03 PM

333 kb/s

Athlon XP Thoroughbred 1700+ 1466mhz@2000mhz (190x10.5 1:1 cas 2-2-3-5) ASUS A7N8X Deluxe

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by eugeneMC on 01/28/04 01:45 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 27, 2004 10:58:44 PM

>THG use only a wav file for WinRAR benchmark, unlike other
>websites

Are you serious ? A WAV file ?? Why not a ZIP of JPG file while you are it.. WAV files hardly compress, they are already (lossless) compressed (well, depending on which codec is used, but most are). You may get a few % compression if you're lucky. Its like testing DivX encoding of a 2 hour movie showing a static image... or only random noise.

Anyway, for my results.. looks low compared to yours; I get 270 Kb/s for a barton 2500+ (not overclocked) 512 Mb 2.5 CL, Maxtor 80 Gb. My harddisk keeps accessing something in the background though, not sure what (taskman doesnt show any active processes).. hmm..

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 28, 2004 9:45:18 AM

Woah there grasshopper. Stop jumping to conclusions. Why in the heavens, earth and hell would you think the wav files tested are compressed. Wav files by tradition have always been uncompressed. That is why a wav file is usually a around 10 larger than a typical mp3 file. Typical @ 128 - 160kbps?

Now even though there are codecs available for lossless compression, I'm sure toms employees are smart enough not to use them. The last time I checked, (a few versions ago) WinRAR had special algorithms for multimedia file compression. That could be one of the reasons they use Wav Files.

Anyway, I still don't see how your DivX analogy relates.

Stay put. No more jumping.


<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2004 10:21:07 AM

How about you take some of your own advice ? WAV is merely a file format, in fact a subset of RIFF, and may contain any sort of codecs, and therefore any sort of compression, even including MP3 ! Sure, it also supports uncompressed, but unless I'm terribly mistaken, even 'uncompressed' PCM is in fact compressed, but lossless, unlike MP3 there is no loss of information.

But its not because its lossless, that you can further compress the file significantly (like zipping or rar-ing it). THe only way to reduce file size, is eliminate information using a compression algorithm such as MP3 or any other.

Just for kicks, I tried zipping a ~300 Mb wav file, which was ripped from a DVD movie. I got a staggering 4% compression using the slowest ((best) compression setting. No wonder, since I assume if is AC3 encoded. PCM encoded may or may not compress slightly better, but nowhere near typical files which can usually be compressed by 50%, and things like office documents easily 80-90%. No one in his right mind would rar his MP3 or DivX collection.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 28, 2004 10:26:42 AM

I got 503 kb/s with my 2.0 ghz athlon 64 setup. Looks like I have the highest score here so far.

Damn it feels good to be finally able to say that.

-----------------------
Add witty comment here and beat this bad boy...
A64 3200+ w/ 1 GB DDR 400
2 36 gig raptors in Raid 0 complemented by an AIW 9800 Pro
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2004 10:31:36 AM

As for the divx comparison: divx-ing a 'movie' of a static image or random noise really doesnt let the divx algorithm work the way it is designed to work (like detecting scene changes, motion detection, etc, etc). This could make a big difference when comparing different cpu's, since you might just be measuring throughput, and not processing things like motion detection, since there is no motion to detect.

Similary, benchmarking compression performance of files that barely compress might (I say might, I have no data or proof) give you very different results from crunching a huge database or text files that compresses into a 5x or 10x smaller files. The RAR compression algorithm may barely be used when trying to compress a already compressed file.

Now since the results are potentially (very) different, it doesnt make sense to use a situation where the algorthim is neither usefull not a likely real world case. Hence my comparison.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 28, 2004 2:14:36 PM

hmm...

this sux... i tested again... 191, what do you suppose is wrong with my system?

<b>on the verge of catastrophy (y1.999...k)</b>
ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro - WD 80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW
January 28, 2004 2:23:27 PM

I must admit I feel pretty silly to ask this but how do you run the bench?

-taitertot

If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.
January 28, 2004 2:30:28 PM

i open win rar and and hit alt-b

sit and wait...

is there any other way?

<b>on the verge of catastrophy (y1.999...k)</b>
ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro - WD 80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW
January 28, 2004 2:34:25 PM

tools->benchmark
January 28, 2004 2:37:30 PM

thats the same way silly.


<b>on the verge of catastrophy (y1.999...k)</b>
ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro - WD 80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW
January 28, 2004 2:47:38 PM

The altB path excludes the use of a mouse, while a mouse can be used the other way, thus they are different.
January 28, 2004 2:58:20 PM

....Meh, same result tho

anyhow i just tryed it again with out being connected to the interntet and haveing my firewall and anti virus disabled and i only got <b>198</b>

so there must be something wrong.

*defraged, my C: all of 4% defragmented, but i got it up to <b>207</b> now

<b>on the verge of catastrophy (y1.999...k)</b>
ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro - WD 80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by cdpage on 01/28/04 12:34 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 28, 2004 3:44:57 PM

I got 344 but I didnt let it run completely I assume the score wount change much anyways right?

-taitertot

If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2004 3:49:17 PM

just going by the numbers published here, makes me believe this built-in bechmark isnt worth a dime.. JMHO.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 28, 2004 5:46:45 PM

I got 199 with my P3 866 mhz. Somehow it seems like some other ppl with better comps have scores that are kind of low...
January 28, 2004 6:20:00 PM

Well, THG do use wave files for winrar benchmarking. And how do you know their one isn't just Raw PCM? And no, Raw PCM Wave files are NOT compressed.

So, like I said no mor jumping. Or hopping for that matter.


<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2004 10:25:16 PM

>Well, THG do use wave files for winrar benchmarking. And
>how do you know their one isn't just Raw PCM?

I dont, but it seems to make no difference ->

>And no, Raw PCM Wave files are NOT compressed.

Well, try it ! I just converted an 4 Mb MP3 to a PCM encoded WAV file (192 Kbs, 44 KHz). The resulting file is a 35.443 Kb .WAV file. Zipped, the same file is 34.404 Kb big, a whopping 3% smaller. But don't take my word for it, go ahead and try it out.

PCM encoded wavs do seem to compress the data, but not lossless like MP3, I'm not sure if you understand the difference. ITs like GIF files, which are also compressed, and will not get smaller by any signicant amount uzing winzip/winrar (again try it). However, GIF's are lossless compressed, no loss in quality, whereas JPG will give you variable compression with loss of quality. Neither GIF nor JPG can be compressed further by any significant ammount using filecompression. Heck, gif files are even likely to get bigger.

Now back to the WAV files; PCM is often called uncompressed, raw, whatever, because just like with gif, there is no loss in data, no loss in audioquality like you'd have with MP3, OGG, WMA, .. That doesnt mean those files are very compressible though. It makes no sense using this type of file to benchmark compression performance.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 28, 2004 11:34:39 PM

Oh for heavens sake, take a raw pcm audio file. Get the sampling rate (usually 44100Hz), multiply that with the sample size (usually 16 bit nowadays), then by the number of channels (usually 2 nowadays) and finally by the duration in seconds. Now divide it by 8 to get the size in bytes.

The size you calculated should match the listed file size. If it doesn't your file is NOT raw PCM. If there is a header attached (All wave format files will have one) the actual file size will be a little larger, and there are also some formatting overheads.

I don't know what software you're using to have RAW PCM files that are actually compressed, cos the Windows PCM codec does not compress the audio. And mp3's are not lossless. They are actually lossy, very lossy.

Anyway.

Heres my sample. The bit in roadtrip where they get to his girlfriends university and have a fight with the mailbox guy. Has talk and music so there should be data variation across a large spectrum through out. It is just over a minute and ten seconds, and the raw file shows as such. The audio clip has been down mixed to 2 channels at a sampling rate of 44.1Khz with 16 bits per sample per channel.

The Raw PCM filesize is 12,403,248 bytes, compressed to 6,015,111 bytes. The resulting filse is less than 50% of the original. 2:1 ain't bad if you ask me.

The compression settings were as follows
- rar compression with WinRAR 3.20
- Best compression
- Solid Archive
- Force Audio Compression with 2 channels
- Dictionary size 4096


So please now, be with it. I've expended too much effort educating you.


<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2004 11:42:20 PM

I'm not sure *what* is it measures, but it seems a piss poor benchmark to measure cpu performance. (unless someone wants to argue a 2500+ is really worse in anything than a P3 866 ?). Besides, a ~200 Kb/s seems ridiculously low anyway. 5 seconds for (de- ?) compressing a 1 MB file ?? I thought not..

It may be a usefull tool for helping decide wether or not your overclock is stable, but I would not use it very anything else really.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 28, 2004 11:44:02 PM

Hey HolyGrenade, Remember what you said to me.

Now can you please stop arguing like kids. You destroyed the poor guys thread.


Oh poor Spitfire everyone wrecking his threads LOL

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
January 28, 2004 11:50:42 PM

:evil: 


<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
January 28, 2004 11:52:42 PM

Quote:
Are you serious ? A WAV file ?? Why not a ZIP of JPG file while you are it.. WAV files hardly compress, they are already (lossless) compressed (well, depending on which codec is used, but most are). You may get a few % compression if you're lucky. Its like testing DivX encoding of a 2 hour movie showing a static image... or only random noise.

I'm totally serious. Check their latest CPU review <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/athlon64_3400..." target="_new">WinRAR benchmark</A>. They did used a 178 MB wave file, and I guess it's a PCM wave file.

PCM files compress very little with ZIP. RAR has special alogrithm for PCM wav files, so it compress PCM wav little better. But anybody who have brain and want lossless compresssion, then he will use Monkey's Audio/FLAC or similar lossless format. Monkey's audio can compress ~50%, much faster and you don't have to extract the file everytime you want to use it.

75% of THG Benchmark suite is total garbage. Their WinRAR benchmark is an example of this.

And this is what WinRAR developers said about the new benchmark module in the help file-

<i>"Only the general compression algorithm in "Best" mode with 4096K dictionary is called, all additional filters and algorithms are disabled, so it measures performance of core RAR compression on worst case like data."</i>

I think this benchmark is vaild. According to developers, WinRAR benchmark tests the worst case (in real world, all kind of data are mixed). I guess P4 is not a good processor for WinRAR. If you look carefully, all P4s are getting low score in this benchmark.

Your score does seem little low, but you're running your memory at CL2.5 and I'm running mine at 2.0-2-2-5. Latency may have some impact in this benchmark. And I had all apps closed, only WinRAR was running

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
January 29, 2004 12:01:43 AM

What time is it? don't you sleep?


<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 29, 2004 12:08:04 AM

>I don't know what software you're using

I used "all the wave" convertor.

> And mp3's are not lossless. They are actually lossy, very
>lossy.

Did I claim anything else ?? (if so, I'm sure its obvious it was a typo, but I don't think I even made it).

Anyway, here is PCM Wave file I used:
<A HREF="http://users.pandora.be/wireless/02-anastacia-paid_my_d..." target="_new">http://users.panora.be/wireless/02-anastacia-paid_my_du...;/A>

Its a PCM encoded WAV (2 channel, 1411 Kb/s, 44 KHz, 16 bits), and it only compresses ~3%. Feel free to expirement with the file (be warned, its BIG:34 MB) and tell me I'm wrong. If you cant download it yet, try again some time later, I'm uploading as I write this. (30 minutes to go.. doh.. only have 128 Kbs upload)

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bbaeyens on 01/28/04 09:55 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 29, 2004 12:15:31 AM

I'm thinking that winrar uses an intel compiler (optomized for sse 2) so it works similarly to divx encoding. Just what we need same bs, different name.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 29, 2004 12:16:25 AM

>RAR has special alogrithm for PCM wav files, so it compress
>PCM wav little better

I didnt know that, I used winzip instead.. may try again using the special winrar feature, but even if it does compress the file somewhat significantly, I'm sure anyone would agree this is a very specific case, and hardly representative of real world compression. I mean seriously, does anyone RAR (or ZIP) its audiofiles ? Its videofiles ?Does anyone use anything besides MP3 anyway for audio anyway ? If you want to use RAR, use it on files that actually compress significantly, like databases, office documents, program files, Linux distro's etc. Not audio.

now, once more, I don't know how this impacts AMD vs Intel performance (don't have a P4 to test this), but it does cast some serious doubts on THG methodology and the credibilitly of the benchmark results.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 29, 2004 12:47:19 AM

Quote:
but it does cast some serious doubts on THG methodology and the credibilitly of the benchmark results.

This is not the only example of recent THG-ish stupidity. Have you ever seen somebody using Magix MP3 Maker Platinum and MP3 Pro? Most people use MP3 and LAME encoder. The second used format is Ogg Vorbis (you'll see many recent games Ogg Vorbis for audio/music). But THG doesn't benchmark Ogg Vorbis encoding performance, but do use Magix MP3 Maker Platinum. Magix MP3 runs faster in P4s, and AXP 3200+ can beat P4 3.2 GHz in Ogg vorbis encoding, AXP 3200+/A64 3400+/A64-FX51 performance is identical in Ogg Vorbis (from gamepc labs benchmark)

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 29, 2004 12:57:09 AM

link should work now. Havent tried with winrar yet, but winzip gives me ~3%

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 29, 2004 1:08:22 AM

Okay, I tried again using WinRAR which apparently has a special PCM/Wav compression algorythm, and indeed it does compress *far* better than using winzip. The RAR file is only 26.8 Mb where the original WAV file is 35.4 Mb. 32% versus 3% for winzip , I had no idea winRAR would ever be that superior.

Anyway, my concern with the test remains. First off, winRAR is not used NEARLY as often as WinZIP (even though it seems to be superior, I'm impressed), and secondly, using a audio file as workload seems to be a very special case. Wether or not this influences the results, I don't know for sure, but using a "complete" harddisk or Linux distro seems llke a much more representative workload then PCM encoded WAV's.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 29, 2004 5:19:59 AM

Aye, WinRAR is very much superior to WinZip and many enthusiasts use it for that reason. I find many more .RAR files than .ZIP files on peer-to-peer networks.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
January 29, 2004 9:26:58 AM

Did you use the settings i gave?

Downloading your file now.

----------

I get just over 25mb.

See now. Let this be a lesson. What you already knowmay get you going, but Its mostly what you don't know that drives the world. And there are some other guys out there that know some of that stuff.



<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by HolyGrenade on 01/29/04 11:51 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 29, 2004 9:27:58 AM

I'm awake now. Its 11:30. wooh this is early for me. I luv being back at uni.


<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 29, 2004 12:10:31 PM

Yeah, I learned winRAR is pretty amazing, and I learned it apparently has a special algorithm for compressing PCM audio. I didnt know that, and wrongly assumed that if winzip couldnt compresss it, then neither could winRAR.

However, I stand by my point; its not a good idea to use WAV compression to benchmark cpu's. It is not a typical scenario and may or may not give different results as other, and more representative workloads. In fact, we still don't even know if that wav file is indeed PCM encoded, and does not use a different, lossy compression algorythm.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 29, 2004 12:48:02 PM

This post should end the argument about lossless audio compression.

RAR and ZIP are not lossless audio compressor. But like lossless compressors, when you compress files with them, they're completely lossless. But you have to extract files every time when you want to use them. WinRAR has special alogrithm for RAW PCM audio compression. WinRAR compresss PCM audio much better with this function enabled (also much faster).

I've used Monkey's audio 3.97 for comparing with lossless audio compressors. It's the best and fastest lossless audio compressor. Monkey's audio usuall can comress music files to 50%-60%. Personally I've found monkey's audio compressing movie audio upto 30%. Here's <A HREF="http://www.monkeysaudio.com" target="_new">Monkey's Audio official website</A>


Applications used for test: ZIP with WinRAR 3.30, RAR with WinRAR 3.30, Monkey's Audio 3.97 with CDex + Monkey's Audio 3.97 Encoder DLL (MACDll.dll)


My audio compression test
==========================

Audio file used : 32 MB PCM WAV, 3 minutes 10 second, music, 44.1 khz, 16 bit, Stereo

ZIP (Max) : 94% (30.4 MB, Compression time = 6s)

RAR (Max, Audio Compression=Auto) : 73% (23.6 MB, Compression time = 17s)

RAR (Max, Audio Compression=Disabled) : 94% (30.4 MB, Compression time = 64s)

Monkey's Audio (Normal) : 65.41% (20.9 MB (Compression time = 3s)

Monkey's Audio (High) : 64.92% (20.8 MB, Compression time = 4s)

Monkey's Audio (Exta High) : 63.00% (20.2 MB, Compression time = 8s)


You can see from this test, using RAR and ZIP format for lossless audio compresson is not a good idea, though RAR can acheive much better compression ratio with special audio compression function enabled. For practical use, lossless audio compressors like Monkey's Audio is the best.

Therefore, there is NO POINT of measuring WinRAR performance with a 178 MB wave file compression time. WinRAR is a general file compression archiving application that is used for every kind of file.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
!