| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Zed Gecko
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 149
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:38 pm Post subject: Compiler Speed - Which AHK2EXE is the fastest for me? |
 |
|
In the "Ask for Help" section we found out that faster Computers may not neccessary compile AHK-code faster.
We found the same script to be compiled on a
700Mhz-P3-256MB-Computer in 2163 milliseconds and on a
2GHz-P4-512MB-Computer in 11750 milliseconds.
Chris said: | Quote: | | If a short script takes longer than expected (more than 5 seconds on an ultrafast CPU), it might be because the code is currently optimized to be small in size. It's also optimized for a mixture of old and new CPUs (Pentium and Pentium 2/3/4+). |
Therfore Chris was so kind to provide us with 2 more compilers:
(removed, obsolete)
I made this little script to easily test the performance of the different compilers:
| Code: | code removed due to protest.
http://www.autohotkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81795
|
You need to copy the two new compilers in the compiler-folder of ahk, to make the script work. Then you´re ready to choose your weapon of choice 
I have compiled the following test-script on my Computer (700Mhz-P3 256MB) to give you a reference:
| Code: | Target = www.google.de
Run, cmd /c tracert %Target% > MyPing.txt
FileRead, FileContent, MyPing.txt
run , MyPing.txt |
| Quote: | Time for standard compiler with UPX (in ms): 2674
Time for FavorFast compiler with UPX (in ms): 2283
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler with UPX (in ms): 2313
Time for standard compiler without UPX (in ms): 741
Time for FavorFast compiler without UPX (in ms): 701
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler without UPX (in ms): 661 |
Please post your result for compiling the above script, too.
Last edited by Zed Gecko on Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Superfraggle
Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 1019
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Compiling the same test script produced
| Quote: | Time for standard compiler with UPX (in ms): 1110
Time for FavorFast compiler with UPX (in ms): 890
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler with UPX (in ms): 891
Time for standard compiler without UPX (in ms): 359
Time for FavorFast compiler without UPX (in ms): 344
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler without UPX (in ms): 344 |
This was an intel core 2 running at 2 gig
_________________
Steve F AKA Superfraggle
http://r.yuwie.com/superfraggle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
engunneer
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 8255
Location: Maywood, IL
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
P4 2.26GHz 256MB memory
| Quote: |
Time for standard compiler with UPX (in ms): 1583
Time for FavorFast compiler with UPX (in ms): 1212
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler with UPX (in ms): 1282
Time for standard compiler without UPX (in ms): 381
Time for FavorFast compiler without UPX (in ms): 360
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler without UPX (in ms): 411
|
_________________
 (Common Answers) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jon
Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Posts: 349
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It must require the latest version of Autohotkey because I couldn't get it to work properly at first. (it would only give the first result)
| Code: | Time for standard compiler with UPX (in ms): 3734
Time for FavorFast compiler with UPX (in ms): 3563
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler with UPX (in ms): 3484
Time for standard compiler without UPX (in ms): 515
Time for FavorFast compiler without UPX (in ms): 438
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler without UPX (in ms): 453 |
AMD Sempron 2600+
1gb memory |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
§~Infinity~§®
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Damascus, Syria
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is my result:
| Code: | Time for standard compiler with UPX (in ms): 3515
Time for FavorFast compiler with UPX (in ms): 1594
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler with UPX (in ms): 1219
Time for standard compiler without UPX (in ms): 1422
Time for FavorFast compiler without UPX (in ms): 1281
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler without UPX (in ms): 1422 |
Pentium 4 3.0Ghz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lexikos
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 7295
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Very strange how much variance you guys are getting... My results were:
| Quote: | Time for standard compiler with UPX (in ms): 1328
Time for FavorFast compiler with UPX (in ms): 1078
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler with UPX (in ms): 1016
Time for standard compiler without UPX (in ms): 859
Time for FavorFast compiler without UPX (in ms): 1000
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler without UPX (in ms): 1047 |
They all seem fairly much the same. 
Athlon XP 3000+
1 GB RAM
Vista
Edit: Looks like Vista's caching something. I ran the test again, on a much larger (~600 lines vs 4 lines) script, and all the results were in the 950-1050 ms range. Looking closer at your results, the difference seems to be in UPX/no UPX. Strange that UPX makes very little difference to mine...
How big should the resulting exes for that 4-line test script be?
Edit2: Err.. there's no size difference between the UPX/no UPX exes. 
Edit3: Okay, this is weird. I tried manually compressing the .exes with upx, and it fails because they're "already packed by UPX" - even the "without UPX" exes!
They're all 196 KB. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Z Gecko
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is indeed weird,
on my machine the upx-compressed testfiles are 196KB and the non-compressed are 399KB. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
engunneer
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 8255
Location: Maywood, IL
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Z Gecko wrote: | This is indeed weird,
on my machine the upx-compressed testfiles are 196KB and the non-compressed are 399KB. |
mine were the same on my XP computer at work. I will try my home Vista machine.
Edit:
I get some funny error about it not being able to find "C:\iLib", but only on the special AHK2Exe files.
Edit2:
Once I created the file (empty), I was able to get this
| Quote: |
Time for standard compiler with UPX (in ms): 1997
Time for FavorFast compiler with UPX (in ms): 1747
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler with UPX (in ms): 1872
Time for standard compiler without UPX (in ms): 1825
Time for FavorFast compiler without UPX (in ms): 1794
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler without UPX (in ms): 1934
|
AMD Turion 64bit dual core with 2GB ram on Vista (32 bit). Tested in battery saver mode (0.8Ghz)
At full speed (1.8GHz), I get:
| Quote: |
Time for standard compiler with UPX (in ms): 842
Time for FavorFast compiler with UPX (in ms): 827
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler with UPX (in ms): 904
Time for standard compiler without UPX (in ms): 827
Time for FavorFast compiler without UPX (in ms): 890
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler without UPX (in ms): 874
|
_________________
(Common Answers) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daonlyfreez
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 949
Location: Berlin
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Time for standard compiler with UPX (in ms): 4891
Time for FavorFast compiler with UPX (in ms): 4578
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler with UPX (in ms): 4516
Time for standard compiler without UPX (in ms): 2578
Time for FavorFast compiler without UPX (in ms): 2609
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler without UPX (in ms): 2625 |
Athlon XP 2800+
512 MB RAM
Win2k
_________________
 mirror 1 • mirror 2 • mirror 3 • ahk4.me • PM or  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ahklerner
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 1381
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Time for standard compiler with UPX (in ms): 3671
Time for FavorFast compiler with UPX (in ms): 3625
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler with UPX (in ms): 3672
Time for standard compiler without UPX (in ms): 515
Time for FavorFast compiler without UPX (in ms): 500
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler without UPX (in ms): 547 |
OS Name Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Version 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2 Build 2600
System Type X86-based PC
Processor x86 Family 6 Model 14 Stepping 12 GenuineIntel ~1828 Mhz
Processor x86 Family 6 Model 14 Stepping 12 GenuineIntel ~1828 Mhz
Total Physical Memory 2,048.00 MB
(Dual Core)
Was not on AC Power.
Same Machine On AC Power
| Quote: | Time for standard compiler with UPX (in ms): 2031
Time for FavorFast compiler with UPX (in ms): 2110
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler with UPX (in ms): 1984
Time for standard compiler without UPX (in ms): 375
Time for FavorFast compiler without UPX (in ms): 391
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler without UPX (in ms): 390 |
Last edited by ahklerner on Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SKAN
Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Posts: 8688
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Time for standard compiler with UPX (in ms): 1344
Time for FavorFast compiler with UPX (in ms): 1094
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler with UPX (in ms): 1219
Time for standard compiler without UPX (in ms): 453
Time for FavorFast compiler without UPX (in ms): 390
Time for FavorFast-Pentium4orHigher compiler without UPX (in ms): 422 |
AMD Sempron 1.4Ghz / 256MB Ram / Win XP SP2
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corrupt
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Interesting... Out of curiousity, what's the purpose of trying to speed up the compiling process (which isn't really "compiling" per se...) ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
engunneer
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 8255
Location: Maywood, IL
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mostly this was a test since it was REALLY slow on someone's PC.
_________________
(Common Answers) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Z Gecko
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, it started in the help-section where someone complained about the long "compiling"-time.
As far as I know, there is (or better was) no hint in the documentation or the forum how long it normaly takes to "compile" a script.
So i made the script, to give kind of a reference on how long it takes.
The rest was pure curiosity  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 10716
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for the results. I'll put the favor-fast-code optimization into effect in the next release because it's slightly faster for most people, and (ironically) smaller in code size than the original favor-small-code version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
