Printed Amstrad Addict magazine announced, check it out here!
Started by roudoudou, 15:42, 02 February 21
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ZX0 : 10718AP-Lib : 10892Exomizer : 11026LZSA2 : 11415ZX7 : 11651
Quote from: eto on 18:44, 02 February 21This looks impressive. Just out of curiosity, how many seconds does it take to decode the boulder dash binary?
Quote from: roudoudou on 08:47, 03 February 21i'v done a test on very crunchable screen data (32K => 6K) and the decrunch speed is very good,
Quote from: eto on 12:05, 03 February 21I am sorry if this sounds dumb, but I have never dealt with compression on the CPC, so I have no idea what "very good" could mean. How many seconds will the CPC need to decrunch that screen or boulder dash?
Quote from: Sykobee (Briggsy) on 18:07, 02 February 21An 82 byte fast and efficient decompressor is pretty nice, and I learned something - elias encoding - from reading about it.Edit: Actually 69 bytes (same as ZX7) or 20% faster in 128 bytes in a more recent version.
Quote from: roudoudou on 19:51, 02 February 21i broke my setup (because i'm doing ZX0 integration to rasm ) but they post a GFX of thisZX0 seems to be as fast as ZX7 which is 4x slower than LDIR (exomizer is 15x slower than LDIR and fastest decrunch like LZ4 are 1.5x slower than LDIR)
Quote from: GUNHED on 17:23, 04 February 21Would be nice to have Madrams Turbocruncher in this picture too.A while ago I testet about a dozen of crunchers on CPC, Madram's tool won (significantly).Here just some 'outtake' of the result:
Quote from: GUNHED on 17:23, 04 February 21Would be nice to have Madrams Turbocruncher in this picture too.A while ago I testet about a dozen of crunchers on CPC, Madram's tool won (significantly).
Quote from: introspec on 19:17, 04 February 21There is not much point having it in the picture. First, I only use PC compressors as the matter of principle (not using PC compressors is simply wasting some compression potential, cannot possibly benefit you).Second, in any case, BitBuster is approximately the same thing as ZX7. I.e. you know that the Turbocruncher's ratio is going to be quite a bit behind. I cannot assess its speed because I've never seen the decompressor, but given how much decompressor technology improved during the last 5-10 years, I'd be shocked to find if it is at least competitive with something like LZSA.
Quote from: roudoudou on 17:53, 04 February 21do you still have your test file? i do not see LZ48 neither LZ49 in the results. I may modify my crunchers to output LZ4 too
Quote from: introspec on 19:17, 04 February 21There is not much point having it in the picture. First, I only use PC compressors as the matter of principle (not using PC compressors is simply wasting some compression potential, cannot possibly benefit you).
Quote from: roudoudou on 20:02, 04 February 21LZ48 and LZ49 do have Z80 crunchers. They beat LZ4/LZSA1 ratio but LZSA1 has really a tremendous speed
Quote from: GUNHED on 02:09, 05 February 21I like to be able to do things on the real machine (CPC/Plus). Of course pretty much all CPC users probably have PC too (nowadays). But PCs will fail one day - CPCs not.
Quote from: introspec on 11:02, 05 February 21I only tested PC compressors for LZ48 and LZ49, but in my tests their average compression ratio is usually lower than the compression ratio of LZ4 or LZSA1. I can see that for some categories of files LZ48 and LZ49 overtake LZ4 (e.g. for text files). However, I am not seeing this for LZSA1. It would be interesting to compare the notes. Which compressor is the best compressor for LZ48 and LZ49?
Quote from: introspec on 10:54, 04 February 21That plot was computed for the original data format and original decompressors, which were modified and additionally re-optimized to be made more efficient.
Quote from: m_dr_m on 08:36, 22 February 21Which file is used for these measures?
Quote from: roudoudou on 09:35, 22 February 21I'm also interested as i do not see Shrinkler without parity context
Page created in 0.093 seconds with 26 queries.