Quote:
Originally Posted by richardpl
I can not reproduce your unscientific findings. Encoding mp3 with lame is marginally slower than ffmpeg here. Same applies to x264 cli. I think you are comparing wrong stuff and/or use very old ffmpeg version.
|
I think it's amusing you're certain ffmpeg can't be slower, but don't question how it can be faster, even if only marginally. Maybe you're comparing the wrong stuff.
I'm now using the XP compatible ffmpeg build dated 2019-08-30 from here.
https://rwijnsma.home.xs4all.nl/files/ffmpeg/
I was using the 2019-04-27 version, and the latest might be tad faster for mp3 encoding, but I discovered Lame.exe is much faster than Lame.exe today. I would've described it as slower, but you probably won't believe that.
I've been using Lame from the foobar2000 encoder pack. The version hosted by rarewares doesn't seem to run on XP. The one I tried today was downloaded from here.
https://tmkk.undo.jp/lame/index_e.html
It's possible I was using the AltiVec/SSE optimized version of Lame 3.99 without realising, or I've forgotten. It'd explain why I remember such a speed difference. Something like 30% faster for VBR encoding, based on my -V 2 encoding tests.
21 files. Encoded one at a time. Slowest to fastest below.
ffmpeg:
Total encoding time: 3:41.938
30.95x realtime
Lame 3.100.2 from the fb2k encoder pack.
Total encoding time: 3:28.719
32.91x realtime
AltiVec/SSE optimized version
Total encoding time: 2:54.140
39.44x realtime
abolibibelot, sorry for sidetracking the thread.
