• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

WinRAR performance

mikeymikec

mikeymikec

Lifer
It was commonly acknowledged (and documented I'm pretty sure) that WinRAR 4.2 performed significantly better than previous versions. Does anyone know if any subsequent versions brought in further significant improvements?
 
You mean in compression or decompression?
I know that RAR5 compressed files are slightly smaller, but, they also decompress faster.
 
Do you guys find any noticeable increase in performance by using 7-Zip over WinRAR, or any benefit whatsoever?

This might sound strange, but I felt guilty always having to close WinRAR's message asking you to buy the program after 30 days of having installed it.
 
Last edited:
@Elixer - yup.

7zip - 7zip's own benchmark seems to utilise the CPU better than WinRAR's does, but I personally prefer WinRAR because the self-extracting EXEs it claims to open, it does it properly. In my experience 7Z sometimes says "yup, I can do that", then proceeds to make a hash of it (mangled folder structure and/or file names). I experienced this when using 7Z to extract the contents of an AMD display driver install exe. As I think this is an essential feature, I want a program to do everything it claims to do, but correctly, rather than claim more than it can do. Extracting the contents of an EXE is often a time-saving exercise, but if it goes wrong, it wastes time.

---

I decided the other day to try and test two versions of WinRAR myself in the hope of answering my own question. I tested WinRAR 4.2 first as I already had it installed; I used the benchmark feature and noted down the figure it gave after 20 seconds of running (5019KB/sec IIRC). I then installed the latest version of WinRAR and did the same benchmark, which gave me a result of something like 4900KB/sec. I removed that version and put 4.2 back on, then got a benchmark result of ~4700KB/sec, at which point I gave up 🙂
 
Xyclone said:
Do you guys find any noticeable increase in performance by using 7-Zip over WinRAR, or any benefit whatsoever?

This might sound strange, but I felt guilty always having to close WinRAR's message asking you to buy the program after 30 days of having installed it.
Click to expand...
7zip is libre. That means you can inspect the source code, and no one can take it from you. You can also use it for any purpose, including commercial. I wouldn't use rar for anything, cause you're locking your stuff in a box using keys you don't own.
 
Xyclone said:
Do you guys find any noticeable increase in performance by using 7-Zip over WinRAR, or any benefit whatsoever?

This might sound strange, but I felt guilty always having to close WinRAR's message asking you to buy the program after 30 days of having installed it.
Click to expand...
I usually end up with 7zip for most things, and only use rar rarely.
Having the source to 7zip available is a bonus that I like. 🙂
 
Almost never use RAR or 7Zip. Been using eZip by Edisys for over 12 years no
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top