Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 04, 2016, 12:06:31 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: Image viewer speed benchmark  (Read 6651 times)

oversky

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2008
  • *
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Image viewer speed benchmark
« on: January 19, 2011, 09:45:09 AM »
This test benchmarks the average decoding time to goto next image file.
Machine Hardware: Thinkpad T42 1.5 GHz Dothon CPU(2MB cache), ATI Mobility Radeon 9000
Test Method: Browser through 9 jpeg files with 1200MP.
                   When the image is completely decoded, pagedown to the next file.

   ACDSee Pro 2.5                   0.50
   FastPictureViewer 1.0 build 109  0.55 (GPU Acceleration is not supported on my machine)
   Hamana 1.48                      0.83
   JPEGView  1.0.21.0               0.94
   ColorStorm 10.9.8.11             1.07
   MangaMeeyaCE  2.4 Beta           1.23
   Picasa 3.8                       1.37
   FastStone  4.2                   1.43
   MaxView 2.4                      1.43
   Fax&Image  (xp)                  1.46
   XnView 1.97.8                    1.54
   FastStone  3.8                   1.56
   XnViewMP 0.32 beta (Dec 6 2010)  1.57
   IrfanView   4.28                 1.57
   Imagine 1.0.8 WIP(Jul 5 2010)    1.70

Conclusion:
ACDSee Pro is still the King of speed. The commercial software has its selling point.
But I would like to see how fast FastPictureViewer is with GPU acceleration.

Hamana is designed for reading comics.

JPEGView is the one I recommend, fast, free and open source.
Unicode filenames and directories are no problem.
It also support some photo editing features, and can show EXIF data on top of photos.
The only features I missed are color manager, and lossless crop.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 10:05:54 AM by oversky »

timns

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,211
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Image viewer speed benchmark
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2011, 09:50:51 AM »
A useful list!
But how much variation do you think has been introduced by the manual method of switching to the next image?

Maybe a macro which would react consistently would be a fairer way to compare them.

oversky

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2008
  • *
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Image viewer speed benchmark
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2011, 10:01:28 AM »
To clear the diskcache, I tried to watch a movie for several minutes between each test.
And each viewer has been tested for several times.
For viewers with difference smaller than 0.1 second,
you can call them the same.
But in general, I would say the result matches with my feeling.

JavaJones

  • Review 2.0 Designer
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,717
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Image viewer speed benchmark
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2011, 12:15:46 PM »
Very interesting tests! Surprising that ACDSee is so high and IrfanView so low. FastStone result is also a bit surprising. I'm actually an XnView fan and I find it "fast enough", but I know it's not the fastest.

- Oshyan

nharding

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Image viewer speed benchmark
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2011, 08:00:36 PM »
Have you tried DCDisplay  (it's designed as a comic viewer but it can view all the files in a directory). It can view up to 60 fps (hold down and after 1/2 second it goes into turbo mode :))

Neil

timns

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,211
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Image viewer speed benchmark
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2011, 08:25:17 PM »
Have you tried DCDisplay  (it's designed as a comic viewer but it can view all the files in a directory). It can view up to 60 fps (hold down and after 1/2 second it goes into turbo mode :))

Neil

Now, see that would not have occurred to me until you just mentioned it. I'd much rather use a DC product if I can. I'll try 'er out.

oversky

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2008
  • *
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Image viewer speed benchmark
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2011, 08:01:47 AM »
I downloaded the DCDisplay. But when it ask to install .net framework 4.0, I stop. Sorry.

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Image viewer speed benchmark
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2011, 08:11:56 AM »
I downloaded the DCDisplay. But when it ask to install .net framework 4.0, I stop. Sorry.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
- carpe noctem

daddydave

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 822
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Image viewer speed benchmark
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2011, 10:18:27 AM »
I downloaded the DCDisplay. But when it ask to install .net framework 4.0, I stop. Sorry.

Enjoy your 300 java updates, lol
If bad things happen to other people, it's karma. If bad things happen to me, it's kismat!

Zero3K

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Image viewer speed benchmark
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2011, 02:23:19 PM »
What about Roboreader (http://www.mind-lapse.com)? How does it compare to the other image viewers that have been mentioned in this thread?

skanskan

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2011
  • *
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Image viewer speed benchmark
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2011, 08:13:38 PM »
Hello
It's interesting you did some true benchmarks.
Some time ago I found myself that acdsee was among the best, algon with fastpictureviewer.
You could also try (and add to the list)
http://www.pictomio.de/Default.aspx
and
http://www.noping.net/kent/osiva/

In my computer acdsee is among the fastests (but not the best) when dealing with small pictures, but with very big ones acdsee is the absolut winner.
The only drawback I see is that it takes to long to start for the first time, and it's not free.

Jibz

  • Developer
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,125
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Image viewer speed benchmark
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2011, 03:45:03 AM »
I tried installing FastPictureViewer, but the trial period was only a week, which was nowhere near enough to get any real idea about how it would work imho. It seemed like a good tool to quickly browse and do a rough culling of a set of images you import.

These are tools with different target uses though -- FPV is a real-time viewer, whereas tools like ACDSee and FastStone create databases. In my view this makes FPV good for checking out a set of images you just acquired, whereas it is less useful for managing your collection.

One thing that bothered me about ACDSee is that the viewer does not support holding down a mouse button to show a zoom of an area. This is such an intuitive and easy way to check out details in a photo, I can't believe it's not there.

Writer

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Image viewer speed benchmark
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2011, 02:24:57 PM »
I find viewers that create a database a less than optimal solution. The vast majority of the quicker viewers create a cache or database file. While some of them have an option to turn off caching, display speeds take a hit.

The only one that doesn't cache is Irfanview.