Log inRegister an accountBrowse CSDbHelp & documentationFacts & StatisticsThe forumsAvailable RSS-feeds on CSDbSupport CSDb Commodore 64 Scene Database
You are not logged in - nap
CSDb User Forums


Forums > C64 Coding > Nucrunch 0.1
2016-02-04 10:02
ChristopherJam

Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1359
Nucrunch 0.1

Continuing from the benchmarks WVL posted in Doynamite 1.x:

I dusted off my unfinished nucrunch in December to pack just enough of the second page of Reutastic to give me some workspace for some precalculations. Pity I didn't schedule enough time to pack the entire demo, else it would have been ~90 blocks instead of 190, but I digress. I've spent bits of the past month cleaning up the code, optimizing the packer (mostly by porting it from python to rust :P), and adding reverse direction support.

It's still no more than a component, with an commandline packer and asm decrunch subroutine, but no tools yet for generating an executable from a single commandline. It does at least now support multiple input segments that are unpacked to their destination addresses, and it's also now useable enough to for me to do some benchmarking.

In short, doynamite's ratio looks pretty unbeatable for anything lz based; my ratio's almost identical despite a somewhat different encoding.

Where I can win though is speed at that ratio; nucrunch is usually ten to twenty percent faster. The one exception in the test corpus is 6.bin, where it's 20% slower; not sure why yet.

I've added the times for pucrunch -ffast below for to complete the comparison. Last two columns are nucrunch, and nucrunch -r (the latter decodes in reverse; should be a more useful component for single filers)

If anyone wants to have a play at this stage, poke me and I'll upload some source. Failing that I'll hold off until I at least have something that can make onefilers without any faffing about with relocating the last couple of pages by hand.

filesizes
#   bin   rle wvl-f wvl-s    tc    bb  pu-f doyna nucru rnucr
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1 11008  8020  4529  4151  4329  3383  3711  3265  3225  3230
2  4973  4314  3532  3309  3423  2648  3005  2512  2498  2490
3  3949  3498  2991  2617  2972  2187  2530  2108  2091  2093
4  7016  6456  4242  4085  4225  3681  3924  3617  3622  3614
5 34760 27647 25781 24895 25210 21306 21182 20405 20447 20516
6 31605 12511 11283 10923 11614  9194  9203  8904  8915  8894
7 20392 17295 12108 11285 11445  9627  9789  9289  9140  9144
8  5713  5407  4179  3916  3936  3251  3656  3132  3165  3187
9  8960  7986  6914  6896  6572  5586  6000  5430  5502  5486

filesize in %
#   bin   rle wvl-f wvl-s    tc    bb  pu-f doyna nucru rnucr
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1   100  72.9  41.1  37.7  39.3  30.7  33.7  29.7  29.3  29.3
2   100  86.7  71.0  66.5  68.8  53.2  60.4  50.5  50.2  50.1
3   100  88.6  75.7  66.3  75.3  55.4  64.1  53.4  53.0  53.0
4   100  92.0  60.5  58.2  60.2  52.5  55.9  51.6  51.6  51.5
5   100  79.5  74.2  71.6  72.5  61.3  60.9  58.7  58.8  59.0
6   100  39.6  35.7  34.6  36.7  29.1  29.1  28.2  28.2  28.1
7   100  84.8  59.4  55.3  56.1  47.2  48.0  45.6  44.8  44.8
8   100  94.6  73.1  68.5  68.9  56.9  64.0  54.8  55.4  55.8
9   100  89.1  77.2  77.0  73.3  62.3  67.0  60.6  61.4  61.2

number of frames to depack
#   bin   rle wvl-f wvl-s    tc    bb  pu-f doyna nucru rnucr
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1     0    11    13    14    15    58    54    27    22    22
2     0     5     7     7     9    38    39    17    14    14
3     0     4     6     6     7    28    31    12    10    10
4     0     8     9     9    10    43    51    20    17    18
5     0    36    39    42    59   300   298   119   104   107
6     0    20    25    25    37   126   152    49    59    59
7     0    22    25    26    32   138   139    60    51    52
8     0     6     8     8    10    43    47    18    16    17
9     0     9    12    12    16    73    81    32    28    29

kilobytes output per second
#   bin   rle wvl-f wvl-s    tc    bb  pu-f doyna nucru rnucr
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1        49.0  41.4  38.5  35.9   9.3  10.0  20.0  24.5  24.5
2        48.7  34.8  34.8  27.0   6.4   6.2  14.3  17.4  17.4
3        48.3  32.2  32.2  27.6   6.9   6.2  16.1  19.3  19.3
4        42.9  38.2  38.2  34.3   8.0   6.7  17.2  20.2  19.1
5        47.3  43.6  40.5  28.8   5.7   5.7  14.3  16.4  15.9
6        77.4  61.9  61.9  41.8  12.3  10.2  31.6  26.2  26.2
7        45.4  39.9  38.4  31.2   7.2   7.2  16.6  19.6  19.2
8        46.6  35.0  35.0  28.0   6.5   6.0  15.5  17.5  16.5
9        48.7  36.5  36.5  27.4   6.0   5.4  13.7  15.7  15.1

cycles per byte consumed
#   bin   rle wvl-f wvl-s    tc    bb  pu-f doyna nucru rnucr
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1     0    27    56    66    68   337   286   163   134   134
2     0    23    39    42    52   282   255   133   110   111
3     0    22    39    45    46   252   241   112    94    94
4     0    24    42    43    47   230   255   109    92    98
5     0    26    30    33    46   277   277   115   100   103
6     0    31    44    45    63   269   325   108   130   130
7     0    25    41    45    55   282   279   127   110   112
8     0    22    38    40    50   260   253   113    99   105
9     0    22    34    34    48   257   265   116   100   104

decrunch time for nucrunch/rnucrunch relative to doynamite
1:  81.5% (-18.5%)  81.5% (-18.5%)
2:  82.4% (-17.6%)  82.4% (-17.6%)
3:  83.3% (-16.7%)  83.3% (-16.7%)
4:  85.0% (-15.0%)  90.0% (-10.0%)
5:  87.4% (-12.6%)  89.9% (-10.1%)
6: 120.4% ( 20.4%) 120.4% ( 20.4%)
7:  85.0% (-15.0%)  86.7% (-13.3%)
8:  88.9% (-11.1%)  94.4% ( -5.6%)
9:  87.5% (-12.5%)  90.6% ( -9.4%)
2016-02-04 10:39
Fungus

Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 602
could you include exo in the tests pls.
2016-02-04 10:40
Oswald

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5007
demo coders wouldnt mind for 10x speed for 10% bigger file. or smth like that.
2016-02-04 11:08
Bitbreaker

Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 498
How's about the size of the decoder itself? Can it easily be integrated into some loader system?
2016-02-04 11:09
Bitbreaker

Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 498
Quote: demo coders wouldnt mind for 10x speed for 10% bigger file. or smth like that.

That would just make the decruncher wait even longer for new data on a on the fly loading/decrunching process :-)
2016-02-04 11:26
HCL

Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 716
Oh noes.. i get compared again on 10+ years old code. But i don't blame noone but myself, i just have to click the release-button :P.
2016-02-04 11:56
ChristopherJam

Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1359
@Fungus, I'll add that to my todo list, unless someone else gets to it first!

@Oswald well, for the moment the KB per second table should be useful for choosing between crunchers, but I'm planning on adding some tuning parameters to nucrunch next…

@Bitbreaker Currently around 380 bytes for the standard decruncher/450 for the reverse. But there's some fairly aggressive inlining in there, probably wouldn't lose too much performance if I scale that back a bit.

The plan is to integrate it with marmaload, but my progress on that is pretty glacial at the moment. Should be pretty trivial to replace the 'next page' callback with something that signals a loader/waits for the next page in any case.
2016-02-04 11:56
ChristopherJam

Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1359
@HCL it's ok, you're still 20% faster than pucrunch -ffast, and that was my go-to until *very* recently :D
2016-02-04 18:24
Bitbreaker

Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 498
Quoting ChristopherJam

@Bitbreaker Currently around 380 bytes for the standard decruncher/450 for the reverse. But there's some fairly aggressive inlining in there, probably wouldn't lose too much performance if I scale that back a bit.


Sounds huge yet, but i'd give a smaller version a try, so mind sharing code?
2016-02-04 19:42
ChristopherJam

Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1359
Quote: Quoting ChristopherJam

@Bitbreaker Currently around 380 bytes for the standard decruncher/450 for the reverse. But there's some fairly aggressive inlining in there, probably wouldn't lose too much performance if I scale that back a bit.


Sounds huge yet, but i'd give a smaller version a try, so mind sharing code?


OK, I'll bundle something up tomorrow.
2016-02-04 20:08
Kabuto
Account closed

Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 58
Could you please include my ALZ64 packer too? It's an LZMA-based packer, compression is very good, but decompression is very slow yet still acceptable for 4 KB intros, and some of your test cases are in that range :)
 
... 92 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
 
Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 - Next
RefreshSubscribe to this thread:

You need to be logged in to post in the forum.

Search the forum:
Search   for   in  
All times are CET.
Search CSDb
Advanced
Users Online
Slimex
Medicus
t0m3000/ibex-crew
Paladin/G★P
hedning/G★P
Low Spirit
Twilight/Excess/Arcade
algorithm
iceout/Avatar/HF
MCM/ONSLAUGHT
Mason/Unicess
Titanium
Brittle/Dentifrice^(?)
Guests online: 336
Top Demos
1 Next Level  (9.8)
2 Mojo  (9.7)
3 Coma Light 13  (9.7)
4 Edge of Disgrace  (9.6)
5 No Bounds  (9.6)
6 Comaland 100%  (9.6)
7 Uncensored  (9.6)
8 The Ghost  (9.6)
9 Wonderland XIV  (9.6)
10 Bromance  (9.6)
Top onefile Demos
1 Party Elk 2  (9.7)
2 Cubic Dream  (9.6)
3 Copper Booze  (9.5)
4 Rainbow Connection  (9.5)
5 TRSAC, Gabber & Pebe..  (9.5)
6 Onscreen 5k  (9.5)
7 Dawnfall V1.1  (9.5)
8 Quadrants  (9.5)
9 Daah, Those Acid Pil..  (9.5)
10 Birth of a Flower  (9.5)
Top Groups
1 Booze Design  (9.3)
2 Nostalgia  (9.3)
3 Oxyron  (9.3)
4 Censor Design  (9.3)
5 Crest  (9.3)
Top Diskmag Editors
1 Jazzcat  (9.4)
2 Magic  (9.4)
3 hedning  (9.2)
4 Newscopy  (9.1)
5 Elwix  (9.1)

Home - Disclaimer
Copyright © No Name 2001-2024
Page generated in: 0.052 sec.