3 ms·
For the curious, I replicated some benchmarks from ~1yr ago (https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/48vkjy/oxipng_a_multithreaded_png_optimizer_written_in/d0n7h
by dikaiosune 9y ago
For the curious, I replicated some benchmarks from ~1yr ago (https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/48vkjy/oxipng_a_multithreaded_png_optimizer_written_in/d0n7h6b/ https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/48vkjy/oxipng_a_multi...).
Note in that thread that the author implies that the optimization levels between the two tools are not necessarily equivalent or stable.
$ optipng --version
OptiPNG version 0.7.6
$ oxipng --version
oxipng 0.16.3
Ran on a 2016 MBP, i7.
Time:
opt-level oxipng optipng
2 148.63s 30.80s
3 9.56s 45.99s
4 23.82s 90.57s
Size of resulting image:
opt-level
original 12M
oxipng optipng
2 12M 12M
3 12M "already optimized"
4 12M "already optimized"
TBH I don't really know how to interpret these results. But with the strange exception of `oxipng -o 2`, it does seem like the naive parallelism offers some real performance wins. Disclaimer: this is an incredibly amateur attempt to benchmark, I really don't have enough knowledge to produce something authoritative.
- userbinator 9y agoIt would be more useful if you didn't round the sizes to "12M", because I have a hard time believing they were all exactly the same. Bytes are a discrete and exact quantity, and ideally would be displayed to full precision to allow useful comparison.
- dikaiosune 9y agoIt would probably be more useful, yes. But that would require remembering what my ls alias without `-h` is, and also would maybe give more confidence in the results of the quick 'n' dirty analysis than is justified.
- 62747478182 9y agoYou can type `/bin/ls -l` to skip your shell aliases.
- vladdanilov 9y agoComparing supposedly the best results. oxipng optipng optimage size 12 231 612B 12 231 612B 11 027 901B time 23.82s 90.57s 50.8s I keep on improving my single-threaded image compressor (http://getoptimage.com http://getoptimage.com).
- mrob 9y agoIs that optimage result for lossless or lossy mode?
- vladdanilov 9y agoLossless in this case.
- DiThi 9y agoWith that file size, I'm guessing you're using a big picture without transparency and with many colors, which is the opposite of the usual use case of optimizing PNGs.
- dikaiosune 9y agoWith significantly smaller file sizes, it could be more challenging to see timing differences. Also, this image is one that someone used the last time OxiPNG was discussed, which seemed relevant to me.
- DiThi 9y agoThen the ideal test is having a bunch of icons with transparency, merged in a single image.