New WinRAR version with built-in benchmark module

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
<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.html" 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>
 

cdpage

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2001
789
0
18,990
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
 

coylter

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2003
1,322
0
19,280
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......)
 

ytoledano

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2003
974
0
18,980
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...
 

jim552

Distinguished
May 1, 2003
171
0
18,680
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>
 

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
Something's definately wrong with your score, since P3 700 can get 188 kb/s.



----------------
<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>
 

amdprescott

Distinguished
May 23, 2003
18
0
18,510
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~
 

Whisper

Distinguished
Nov 10, 2003
91
0
18,630
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.
 

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
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>
 

sparky853

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2003
909
0
18,980
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
 

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
Was any CPU intensive programs running in background?

I think with i850E chipset and PC1066 RDRAM your system would score somewhat better.

----------------
<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>
 

EugeneMc

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2003
55
0
18,630
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>
 
G

Guest

Guest
>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. =
 

HolyGrenade

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2001
3,359
0
20,780
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>
 
G

Guest

Guest
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. =
 

gothitbycar

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2002
513
0
18,980
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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. =
 

cdpage

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2001
789
0
18,990
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
 

taitertot

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2003
193
0
18,680
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.
 

cdpage

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2001
789
0
18,990
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
 

cdpage

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2001
789
0
18,990
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
 

cdpage

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2001
789
0
18,990
....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>