And sure enough, if you sort the results by efficiency, WinRAR rises directly to the top. Its scores of 1871 (Good) and 1983 (Best) rank third and fourth out of 200. The top two spots are held by an archiver I've never heard of, SBC.WinRAR and SBC 0.970 score very well on efficiency. Both SBC and WinRK are capable of compressing the 301 MB testset down to 82 MB [a 73% compression ratio] in under 3 minutes. People looking for good (but not ultimate) and fast compression should have a look at those two programs.The raw data on the comparison page is a little hard to parse, so I pulled the data into Excel and created some alternative views of it. Here's a graph of compression ratio versus time, sorted by compression ratio, for all compared archive programs:What I wanted to illustrate with this graph is that beyond about 73% compression ratio, performance falls off a cliff. This is something I've noted before in previous compression studies. You don't just hit the point of diminishing returns in compression, you slam into it like a brick wall. That's why the time scale is logarithmic in the above graph. Look at the massive differences in time as you move toward the peak compression ratio:72.58%02:54WinRAR 3.6275.24%11:20UHARC 0.6b77.16%30:38DRUILCA 0.578.83%05:51:19PAQ8H79.70%08:30:03WinRK 3.0.3Note that I cherry-picked the most efficient archivers out of this data, so this represents best case performance. Is an additional two percent of compression worth taking five times longer? Is an additional four percent worth ten times longer? Under the right conditions, possibly. But the penalty is severe, and the reward miniscule.If you're interested in crunching the multiple file compression benchmark study data yourself, I converted it to a few different formats for your convenience:Download Excel spreadsheet (36 KB)Google Spreadsheet (view-only)Google Spreadsheet (editable, but need Google login)
Personally, I recommend the Excel version. I had major performance problems with the Google spreadsheet version.After poring over this data, I'm more convinced than ever. RAR offers a nearly perfect blend of compression efficiency and speed across all modern compression formats. And WinRAR is an exemplary GUI implementation of RAR. It's almost a no-brainer. Except in cases where backwards compatibility trumps all other concerns, we should abandon the archaic ZIP format-- and switch to the power and flexibility of WinRAR.
Back For Good Modern Talking Rar
Download: https://gohhs.com/2vFxpq
2ff7e9595c
Comments