Skip to main content
Topic: How does AC3 compare to MP3 in terms of computational power requirements? (Read 301 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How does AC3 compare to MP3 in terms of computational power requirements?

In terms of decoding, which one can be done with the weakest CPU/RAM/etc?

I'm interested as we are now having to deal with some incredibly ancient devices. To put it into perspective for you: The video will be xvid encoded as h264 is a struggle on them.


QUICK EDIT:
If we went with AC3 or MP3, they would be laid out as such if it matters:
44.1kHz
ac3 - 256k
mp3 - 192k

Re: How does AC3 compare to MP3 in terms of computational power requirements?

Reply #1
To put it into perspective for you: The video will be xvid encoded
What's the resolution of this video?

Re: How does AC3 compare to MP3 in terms of computational power requirements?

Reply #2
it will be 853x480

Re: How does AC3 compare to MP3 in terms of computational power requirements?

Reply #3
IIRC: AC3 is flightly faster to decode than MP3 (see post #61 and post #66 of another thread) but I doubt that you'll be able to see the difference. Audio decoding require much less CPU resources that video decoding.

Re: How does AC3 compare to MP3 in terms of computational power requirements?

Reply #4
Thanks for the tip and link! Its quite a struggle to make it all work right now so we're looking for anything else to help.

 

Re: How does AC3 compare to MP3 in terms of computational power requirements?

Reply #5
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,82125.0.html

Here are some benchmarks on ARM. AC3 is a lot less complex than mp3, but probably compared to video both are too fast to matter.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018