WinRAR 3.6 beta (now with multithreaded biscuits)

[Richard]

What's New: http://www.rarlabs.com/rarnew.htm

I get around +24% increase in performance on my 3.2 HT when multithreading is enabled.

 

[Humus]

Compressing a 110MB directory with various drivers.

WinRar 3.50: 95s
WinRar 3.60: 82s (16% faster)
WinRar 3.60 MT: 62s (53% faster. 32% faster than single threaded)

Athlon64 X2 3800+

 

[suryad]

Ran the benchmark utility. Without multithreading I get 434 kb/sec but with multithreading enabled I get 546 kb/sec.

P4 3.4 ghz Prescott

 

[BRiT]

Ran the benchmark utility. Without multithreading I get 434 kb/sec but with multithreading enabled I get 546 kb/sec.

P4 3.4 ghz Prescott

Run benchmark utility for 2 minutes elapsed time with plenty of background processes running (NOD32, mIRC, Trillian, FireFox, Konfabulator). A 71% improvement when multithreading.

AMD X2 4400+ @2.5Ghz, WinXP SP2 32bit
With Multithreading: 1134 KB/s, 135MB processed, 2 minutes elapsed time
Without Multithreading: 661 KB/s, 79 MB processed, 2 minutes elapsed time

 

[Diplo]

Freaky! I was just think win-rar would be a good candidate for multi-threading and even checked their site a few days ago to see if they had enabled it. Cheers for heads up

Just tried it out and could clearly see both cores being utilised. Good stuff!

 

[Spaceman-Spiff]

This is a great release. I love winrar for its compression ratio, but it's rather slow compared to gzip and zip.

Now someone needs to redo the benchmarks againts 7zip (LZMA) and bzip2.

 

[Humus]

Same stuff as above.

7zip 4.32: 94s

Interestingly, these are the compression rates I got:
WinRar: 69,154KB (63%)
7zip: 44,599Kb (41%)

7zip is usually a bit better, but this is a pretty huge difference.

 

[chavvdarrr]

Same stuff as above.

7zip 4.32: 94s

Interestingly, these are the compression rates I got:
WinRar: 69,154KB (63%)
7zip: 44,599Kb (41%)

7zip is usually a bit better, but this is a pretty huge difference.

7-zip is very good on compresing big files (like Oracle DB) - we even use it for compressing DB's at work... it saves a tape or 2 every month
Although its slow... but its simply the algorythm that is much more cpu-hungry ...

 

[Diplo]

7zip is usually a bit better, but this is a pretty huge difference.

You didn't mention what settings you were using in WinRar - you can choose from a number of compression levels from "fastest" to "best". Generally, though, different compression algorithms favour different types and sizes of file so to do a scientific comparison you really need to compress a wide range of files. Having said that, 7Zip will usually be the winner in terms of ratio.

 

[Richard]

http://maximumcompression.com/

Executive summary: 7zip usually achieves slightly better compression but Winar has a reasonably higher efficiency.

 

[Humus]

You didn't mention what settings you were using in WinRar - you can choose from a number of compression levels from "fastest" to "best". Generally, though, different compression algorithms favour different types and sizes of file so to do a scientific comparison you really need to compress a wide range of files. Having said that, 7Zip will usually be the winner in terms of ratio.

I used best compression with both.

 

[epicstruggle]

supposedly blows everything else out of the water:
http://www.myinfima.com/archive/

beta warning.

 

[Mendel]

Actually, haven't you guys still heard of UHarc?

It's very, very efficient "new" compression algorithm by Uwe Herklotz.

Here's a couple of alternative front-ends:

http://filecompress.altervista.org/
http://www.klaimsoft.com/winuha/
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Compression-tools/UHARC-GUI-by-Brhack.shtml


This has been primarily used by various warez scene groups so far, fitting dvd size games to couple a hundred MBs. But its not the fault of the algorithm if its been used for illegitimate purposes, certainly not a reason not to endorse it.

 

[chavvdarrr]

I've seen Uharc used at least 3-4 ago... the only problem with it, KGB archiver and infima is the speed. they are very slow for everyday usage

 

[FrameBuffer]

Actually, haven't you guys still heard of UHarc?

It's very, very efficient "new" compression algorithm by Uwe Herklotz.

Here's a couple of alternative front-ends:

http://filecompress.altervista.org/
http://www.klaimsoft.com/winuha/
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Compression-tools/UHARC-GUI-by-Brhack.shtml


This has been primarily used by various warez scene groups so far, fitting dvd size games to couple a hundred MBs. But its not the fault of the algorithm if its been used for illegitimate purposes, certainly not a reason not to endorse it.

yep Uharc has been around for quite some time,.. seems like a while now, at least as long (if not longer) than 7z. Uharc does offer great compression for different media types (in particular ppm for text) at the slight cost of speed. KGB and WinRK both have incredible compression however the time costs far FAR outweigh their compression ability imo, a big strike against WinRK (again IMO) is that as a relatively new and unknown compression it will be nearly impossible for it to succeed given their "Must Pay to USE" policy.

A long favorite of mine sometime ago was ace (WinAce) however it seems to have fallen by the side it appears.