ive got some problem with this, it is much faster than LAME
here some data:
some 33 MB wave take(each with VBR 4, no gtk): -PII/308 (Lame version 3.13 on GNU/linux; kernel:2.0.36 gcc 2.9): 5min ca. 30 sec -PII/308 (NT 4 lame codec (version 0.22 engine 3.14) of CDex): 2min 33 sec
why is there such a big difference? i have taken the compiler optimation options suggested in the makefile, then it took 4:30 on linux, still nearly two times as slow...
>My 333 Celeron typically has loads less than 1% >while playing using mpg123 or x11amp.
no, that is not right, linux has got a problem with this, also the CPU usage of NAD was under Windows only 0%...
winamp consums 5,4% of the cpu power, on my PII/300. tested with the rc5-client, with and without winamp, this 5,4% are the difference between the key-rates.
try it under linux with this method (i had not the time, yet)
Slashdot Mirror
ive got some problem with this, it is much faster than LAME
here some data:
some 33 MB wave take(each with VBR 4, no gtk):
-PII/308 (Lame version 3.13 on GNU/linux;
kernel:2.0.36 gcc 2.9): 5min ca. 30 sec
-PII/308 (NT 4 lame codec (version 0.22 engine 3.14) of CDex): 2min 33 sec
why is there such a big difference?
i have taken the compiler optimation options suggested in the makefile, then it took 4:30 on linux, still nearly two times as slow...
>My 333 Celeron typically has loads less than 1% >while playing using mpg123 or x11amp.
no, that is not right, linux has got a problem with this, also the CPU usage of NAD was under Windows only 0%...
winamp consums 5,4% of the cpu power, on my PII/300.
tested with the rc5-client, with and without winamp, this 5,4% are the difference between the key-rates.
try it under linux with this method
(i had not the time, yet)
Where to get an Alpha+MB for $250?
that sounds realy to cheap