4 ms·

Anything more than 100 MB/s is considered "enough" for the internet because at that point your bottleneck is no longer decoding. Most modern compression algorit

Anything more than 100 MB/s is considered "enough" for the internet because at that point your bottleneck is no longer decoding. Most modern compression algorithms are asymmetric, that is, you can spend much more time on compression without significantly affecting the decompression performance, so it is indeed less significant once the base performance is achieved.

oynqr 3y ago
When you actually want good latency, using the throughput as a metric is a bit misguided.
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  As others pointed out, that's why JPEG XL's excellent support for progressive decoding is important. Other formats do not support progressive decoding at all or made it optional, so it cannot be even compared at this point. In the other words, the table can be regarded as an evidence that you can have both progressive decoding and performance at once.
- lonjil 3y ago
  If you don't have progressive decoding, those metrics are essentially the same.
- mort96 3y ago
  There is no "throughput vs latency" here, there is no "start-up time" for decoding an image that's already in RAM. If a decoder decodes at 100MiB/s, and a picture is 10MiB, it's decoded in 0.1 seconds. If the decoder decodes at 1 MiB/s, the same picture is decoded in 10 seconds.
  - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
    This isn't true for web use cases. There being able to start decoding from when the first bits arrive vs the last bits can make a difference (which JPEG-XL does a lot better than other image formats because it first sends all the DC coefficients which lets the website display a low resolution version of the image and then fill in the detail as the rest of the image comes through.
    - mort96 3y ago
      That's about progressive decoding, which isn't what this benchmark is focusing on. When benchmarking decode speed, throughput is a perfectly good metric. If the article wanted to talk about progressive decode performance, it would require a complete redesign, not just a change in metric from "throughput" to "latency".
JyrkiAlakuijala 3y ago
During the design process of pik/jpeg xl I experimented on decode speed as a personal experience to have an opinion about this. I tried a special version of chrome that artificially throttled the image decoding. Once the decoding speed gets into the 20 megapixels per second the feeling coming from the additional speed was difficult to notice. I tried 2, 20 and 200 megapixels per second throttlings. This naturally depends on image sizes and uses too. There was a much more easy to notice impact from progressive images and even sequential images displayed in a streaming manner during the download. As a rule of thumb, sequential top-to-bottom streaming feels 2x faster as a waiting rendering, and progressive feels 2x faster than sequential streaming.
silvestrov 3y ago
Decoding speed is important for battery time. If a new format drains battery twice as fast, users don't want it.
- jonsneyers 3y ago
  This matters way more for video (where you are decoding 30 images per second continuously) than it does for still images. For still images, the main thing that drains your battery is the display, not the image decoding :) But in any case, there are no _major_ differences in decoding speed between the various image formats. The difference caused by reducing the transfer size (network activity) and loading time (user looking at a blank screen while the image loads) is more important for battery life than the decoding speed itself. Also the difference between streaming/progressive decoding and non-streaming decoding probably has more impact than the decode speed itself, at least in the common scenario where the image is being loaded over a network.
  - JyrkiAlakuijala 3y ago
    Agreed. For web use they all decode fast enough. Any time difference might be in progression or streaming decoding, vs. waiting for all the data to arrive before starting to decode. For image gallery use of camera resolution photographs (12-50 Mpixels) it can be more fun to have 100+ Mpixels/s, even 300 Pixels/s.
  - caskstrength 3y ago
    > This matters way more for video (where you are decoding 30 images per second continuously) than it does for still images. OTOH video decoding is highly likely to be hardware accelerated on both laptops and smartphones. > For still images, the main thing that drains your battery is the display, not the image decoding :) I wonder if it becomes noticeable on image-heavy sites like tumblr, 500px, etc.
    - jonsneyers 3y ago
      Assuming the websites are using images of appropriate dimensions (that is, not using huge images and relying on browser downscaling, which is a bad practice in any case), you can quite easily do the math. A 1080p screen is about 2 megapixels, a 4K screen is about 8 megapixels. If your images decode at 50 Mpx/s, that's 25 full screens (or 6 full screens at 4K) per second. You need to scroll quite quickly and have a quite good internet connection before decode speed will become a major issue, whether for UX or for battery life. Much more likely, the main issue will be the transfer time of the images.

oynqr 3y ago

When you actually want good latency, using the throughput as a metric is a bit misguided.

lifthrasiir 3y ago
As others pointed out, that's why JPEG XL's excellent support for progressive decoding is important. Other formats do not support progressive decoding at all or made it optional, so it cannot be even compared at this point. In the other words, the table can be regarded as an evidence that you can have both progressive decoding and performance at once.
lonjil 3y ago
If you don't have progressive decoding, those metrics are essentially the same.
mort96 3y ago
There is no "throughput vs latency" here, there is no "start-up time" for decoding an image that's already in RAM. If a decoder decodes at 100MiB/s, and a picture is 10MiB, it's decoded in 0.1 seconds. If the decoder decodes at 1 MiB/s, the same picture is decoded in 10 seconds.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
  This isn't true for web use cases. There being able to start decoding from when the first bits arrive vs the last bits can make a difference (which JPEG-XL does a lot better than other image formats because it first sends all the DC coefficients which lets the website display a low resolution version of the image and then fill in the detail as the rest of the image comes through.
  - mort96 3y ago
    That's about progressive decoding, which isn't what this benchmark is focusing on. When benchmarking decode speed, throughput is a perfectly good metric. If the article wanted to talk about progressive decode performance, it would require a complete redesign, not just a change in metric from "throughput" to "latency".

JyrkiAlakuijala 3y ago

During the design process of pik/jpeg xl I experimented on decode speed as a personal experience to have an opinion about this. I tried a special version of chrome that artificially throttled the image decoding. Once the decoding speed gets into the 20 megapixels per second the feeling coming from the additional speed was difficult to notice. I tried 2, 20 and 200 megapixels per second throttlings. This naturally depends on image sizes and uses too. There was a much more easy to notice impact from progressive images and even sequential images displayed in a streaming manner during the download. As a rule of thumb, sequential top-to-bottom streaming feels 2x faster as a waiting rendering, and progressive feels 2x faster than sequential streaming.

silvestrov 3y ago

Decoding speed is important for battery time. If a new format drains battery twice as fast, users don't want it.

jonsneyers 3y ago
This matters way more for video (where you are decoding 30 images per second continuously) than it does for still images. For still images, the main thing that drains your battery is the display, not the image decoding :) But in any case, there are no _major_ differences in decoding speed between the various image formats. The difference caused by reducing the transfer size (network activity) and loading time (user looking at a blank screen while the image loads) is more important for battery life than the decoding speed itself. Also the difference between streaming/progressive decoding and non-streaming decoding probably has more impact than the decode speed itself, at least in the common scenario where the image is being loaded over a network.
- JyrkiAlakuijala 3y ago
  Agreed. For web use they all decode fast enough. Any time difference might be in progression or streaming decoding, vs. waiting for all the data to arrive before starting to decode. For image gallery use of camera resolution photographs (12-50 Mpixels) it can be more fun to have 100+ Mpixels/s, even 300 Pixels/s.
- caskstrength 3y ago
  > This matters way more for video (where you are decoding 30 images per second continuously) than it does for still images. OTOH video decoding is highly likely to be hardware accelerated on both laptops and smartphones. > For still images, the main thing that drains your battery is the display, not the image decoding :) I wonder if it becomes noticeable on image-heavy sites like tumblr, 500px, etc.
  - jonsneyers 3y ago
    Assuming the websites are using images of appropriate dimensions (that is, not using huge images and relying on browser downscaling, which is a bad practice in any case), you can quite easily do the math. A 1080p screen is about 2 megapixels, a 4K screen is about 8 megapixels. If your images decode at 50 Mpx/s, that's 25 full screens (or 6 full screens at 4K) per second. You need to scroll quite quickly and have a quite good internet connection before decode speed will become a major issue, whether for UX or for battery life. Much more likely, the main issue will be the transfer time of the images.