News 7-Zip for Windows goes massively parallel with first ‘Threadripper Edition’ — five years after Threadripper debut, Version 25.00 the first to suppo...

[Admin]

7-Zip version 25.00 is the first Windows release to properly support more than 64 threads.

7-Zip for Windows goes massively parallel with first ‘Threadripper Edition’ — five years after Threadripper debut, Version 25.00 the first to suppo... : Read more

 

[SomeoneElse23]

From my testing, the more threads, the more memory. Yeah it'll go incredibly fast, with incredible memory.

Still, that's pretty neat.

 

[DS426]

From my testing, the more threads, the more memory. Yeah it'll go incredibly fast, with incredible memory.

Still, that's pretty neat.

Indeed, and generally as core counts increase, memory does as well.

I like Dave Plummer. Great YouTube channel.

 

[twin_savage]

Whenever I'm using LZMA2 compression with 7zip I keep the thread count ≤3 because of the space efficiency lost after 3 threads are used.
I never see anyone talk about this and thought I was going crazy after noticing it.

 

[SomeoneElse23]

Whenever I'm using LZMA2 compression with 7zip I keep the thread count ≤3 because of the space efficiency lost after 3 threads are used.
I never see anyone talk about this and thought I was going crazy after noticing it.

It depends a lot on the data being compressed. Like a highly optimized program, testing and benchmarking helps.

I have an automated nightly backup process that uses 7-zip to squeeze a 14gb tar down to 2.7gb. With lots of testing on a 5950x with lots of memory on a fast NVMe, I found a "sweet spot" with a custom dictionary size.

I found that more cores means more memory usage, faster compression, but the same output size. That made it somewhat easy to test.

It takes more than hour to run on a slower machine with 3 threads, but it works, every single night, squeezing 14gb down to 2.7gb.

 

[shortaru]

"Must have" is a * statement. 😂

Just because you don't like WinRAR doesn't mean your pet compression software is the only viable option.

I've not used 7-zip since the year it came out (wasn't all that impressed with the release), and jumped back into the arms of my beloved WinRAR and haven't looked back.

Prima facie evidence of the inaccuracy of your precious 7-zip being a "must have".

TBF, I'm not saying 7-zip is not a better program overall than WinRAR by NOW due to the fact that WinRAR isn't exactly huge on evolution, but that's EXACTLY why I prefer it. It's the overselling I took exception with.

 

[SomeoneElse23]

All programmers have their quirks. 7-zip is no exception. For example, he insists * as a wildcard is an archaic idea. As such, his command line logic is, in my perspective, a bit backwards.

However, others have cracked that nut, and you can find websites that clearly document what does what.

With a little time and experimentation, however, the 7zip command line is incredibly powerful.

The user interface for 7zip is a bit, um, nerdy and not friendly. WinRAR probably has the upper hand there. I personally tried WinRAR way back when it was created, and was not impressed. Haven't looked at it since.