3 ms·
That's not true. libjpeg-turbo is ~50 MB/s last I tried - plus it's not lossless. fjxl and fpnge are basically an order of magnitude faster than that. libjpeg-t
by pizza 4y ago
That's not true. libjpeg-turbo is ~50 MB/s last I tried - plus it's not lossless. fjxl and fpnge are basically an order of magnitude faster than that. libjpeg-turbo isn't even the fastest jpeg codec - you should check out the (relatively obscure) libmango - roughly 1 gbps decode on a 2020 macbook pro - or nvJPEG for GPU-based JPEG decoding. Supposedly there's even faster GPU-based decoders than nvJPEG, too.
- bob1029 4y ago> GPU-based How does this impact the overall latency of encoding a single image?
- pizza 4y agoProbably quite a bit, I don't know. The typical use case is to load up thousands of JPEGs at once to get good throughput despite copy overhead. You can see here the benchmark against jpeg-turbo: https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/leveraging-hardware-jpeg-decoder-and-nvjpeg-on-a100/ https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/leveraging-hardware-jpeg-d...
- averne_ 4y agoI've written an open-source driver for the decoding side of the nvjpg module found in the Tegra X1 (ie. earlier hardware revision than the one in the A100). I did some quick benchmarks against libjpeg-turbo, if that can give you an idea. I expect encoding performance would be similar. https://github.com/averne/oss-nvjpg#performance https://github.com/averne/oss-nvjpg#performance