Can you include .3MF to the list of re-compressible formats?

[TBGBe]

I would suggest doing another test run with much larger archives (maybe >2GB) as that is where the advantage (if there is one) would show up.

For general use I don’t see a “practical” advantage.

However, I know that my next PC purchase would be at least a 64 bit system :p - so (even as just a “marketing gimmick”) I don’t think you can avoid having a 64 bit version.

[spwolf]

there would be no difference when it comes to larger sizes, very little memory is actually used during extraction and in any case, compression engines do not take a lot of memory even at strongest/slowest settings (Nowhere close to 3GB).

[TBGBe]

@spwolf:

… compression engines do not take a lot of memory even at strongest/slowest settings (Nowhere close to 3GB).

Is that why the ultra settings say (memory req) :confused:

[spwolf]

@TBGBe:

Is that why the ultra settings say (memory req) :confused:

oh it takes memory, but not 3 GB :-). Easily 1-1.3 GB is taken by Ultra settings in 7zip… But thats far cry from what 32bit can address.

Big difference is number of registers, which is double than 32bit systems, so this is where 5%-10% in compression comes from. However there are drawbacks as shown by extraction times.

So basically perfect archiver would use 64bit for compression and 32bit for extraction :-)

[TBGBe]

Yes, but that is assuming that a user does not have any other applications running when using PA.

Anyway, I think the marketing angle outweighs any technical advantage in this case.

[Luxor]

@TBGBe:

Anyway, I think the marketing angle outweighs any technical advantage in this case.

^^ This.
As that’s all that some people will care about. They will have 64bit Windows and be convinced in their mind that software that offers 64bit options is the one they need and must have. :rolleyes:

[gan]

I’m not saying that 64 bit is necessarily better and faster in all cases, but all the benchmarks/tests i have seen so far for WinRAR shows that the 64 bit edition is basically faster. These benchmarks show that 64 bit OS with 64 bit WinRAR is faster for all operations compared to 64 bit OS with 32 bit WinRAR, but 64 bit OS and 32 bit WinRAR is faster than 32 bit OS and 32 bit WinRAR which seems to be the slowest combination.

Not sure why the results differ for this test performed by PA.

-gan

[spwolf]

@gan:

I’m not saying that 64 bit is necessarily better and faster in all cases, but all the benchmarks/tests i have seen so far for WinRAR shows that the 64 bit edition is basically faster. These benchmarks show that 64 bit OS with 64 bit WinRAR is faster for all operations compared to 64 bit OS with 32 bit WinRAR, but 64 bit OS and 32 bit WinRAR is faster than 32 bit OS and 32 bit WinRAR which seems to be the slowest combination.

Not sure why the results differ for this test performed by PA.

-gan

maybe compression benchmarks, but for extractions, it is definitely slower… there is nothing special with these benchmarks, they can be done by anyone.

Basically due to nature of design, 64bit extraction has a lot of redundancy compared to 32bit. There is nothing extra there to gain speed, unlike during the compression.

So you come into situation that 32bit PowerArchiver is significantly faster than 64bit WinRar v4 under same 64bit Windows 7 computer :-)

Of course, PA is always faster anyway due to super duper optimizations our Eugene used for unrar :)

[gan]

@spwolf:

maybe compression benchmarks, but for extractions, it is definitely slower… there is nothing special with these benchmarks, they can be done by anyone.

Basically due to nature of design, 64bit extraction has a lot of redundancy compared to 32bit. There is nothing extra there to gain speed, unlike during the compression.

Well i’m not saying you are wrong and sure you guys know what you are doing:) I’m just saying all the benchmarks i have seen for WinRAR then WinRAR x64 performed better for both compression and extraction compared to WinRAR x86. If that means 64 bit is faster or if they done better work with the 64 bit version or if it doesn’t mean anything at all i don’t know.

-gan

[spwolf]

@gan:

Well i’m not saying you are wrong and sure you guys know what you are doing:) I’m just saying all the benchmarks i have seen for WinRAR then WinRAR x64 performed better for both compression and extraction compared to WinRAR x86. If that means 64 bit is faster or if they done better work with the 64 bit version or if it doesn’t mean anything at all i don’t know.

-gan

well you can see benchmarks above for both 7zip and Rar v4… and with extraction, it is always slower. It has to be slower, it is due to how 64bits work… In the same time, compression is faster.

So ultimate tool would always use 32bit extraction and 64bit compression…

thing is, everyone will still complain, thinking that simply it has to be faster since it is 64bit! :-)

[guido]

Did you do the 32 bit tests on a x64 machine/windows?

[spwolf]

@guido:

Did you do the 32 bit tests on a x64 machine/windows?

same computer was used, that was the point :-)

[guido]

So the 32bit is executed using WOW? So x64 generates a lot of overhead.

[spwolf]

@guido:

So the 32bit is executed using WOW? So x64 generates a lot of overhead.

yep… for extraction it is useless… for compression, double the number of registers help it.

[guido]

I vote -1 for 64 bit. Give prio to something else.

I never compress P*rn. I just extract it :D

[TBGBe]

@guido:

I never compress P*rn. I just extract it :D

I just Preview it :p

[guido]

@TBGBe:

I just Preview it :p

inside or outside archive :D

[gan]

@spwolf:

So ultimate tool would always use 32bit extraction and 64bit compression…

thing is, everyone will still complain, thinking that simply it has to be faster since it is 64bit! :-)

Either way compression is a lot more time consuming so the most important part to improve. If i could pick 64 bit PA to get a bit faster compression, but also a bit slower extraction i would have picked that option.

I believe 64 bit Windows on the desktop really had a breakthrough with Vista and 7. A lot of people want 64 bit for the OS and then usually prefer native 64 bits applications as well even if they don’t notice a difference compared to 32 bit. I guess it’s not a matter of “if” a software company should have a 64 bit version, but but “when” it should happen since 64 bit obviously is the future. Some competitors are already there and i think PA should consider to do the same thing sooner instead of later.

-gan

[spwolf]

@gan:

Either way compression is a lot more time consuming so the most important part to improve. If i could pick 64 bit PA to get a bit faster compression, but also a bit slower extraction i would have picked that option.

I believe 64 bit Windows on the desktop really had a breakthrough with Vista and 7. A lot of people want 64 bit for the OS and then usually prefer native 64 bits applications as well even if they don’t notice a difference compared to 32 bit. I guess it’s not a matter of “if” a software company should have a 64 bit version, but but “when” it should happen since 64 bit obviously is the future. Some competitors are already there and i think PA should consider to do the same thing sooner instead of later.

-gan

well this is why the thread was started - to see if people want 64bit extraction of RARs even if it is slower than 32bit extraction of RARs and has no benefit except for being slower :-)

[gan]

@spwolf:

well this is why the thread was started - to see if people want 64bit extraction of RARs even if it is slower than 32bit extraction of RARs and has no benefit except for being slower :-)

Sure i understand and just giving my vote:) But faster compression is a benefit i would say and i assume a 64 bit PA would support the creation of zip, zipx and 7z like the 32 bit edition. The ability to create RARs using PA would be great as well, but that’s another discussion already to be found in other threads.

-gan