Tested WinRAR v3.42 against 7-Zip v3.13. The default maximum compression settings were used on both programs. I Think that the results are rather interesting...
Archiver Compressed test files
WinRAR V3.42 755,165 bytes
7-Zip v3.13 822,115 bytes (Ultra + LZMA)
759,280 bytes (Ultra + PPMD)
859,806 bytes (Ultra + BZip2)
Maximumcompression.com test files (rafale.bmp, vcfiu.hlp, world95.txt)
Program Compressed test files
WinRAR V3.42 1,956,713 bytes
7-Zip v3.13 2,164,585 bytes (Ultra + LZMA)
1,878,034 bytes (Ultra + PPMD)
2,201,366 bytes (Ultra + BZip2)
What most benchmarks don't say is :
1. Which program is free and which is not.
2. Which has a GUI.
3. How many time does it need to compress/decompress.
4. Which offers the source of both the GUI and the compressors/decompressors.
If you combine these four points, you will see that there is only one competitor : 7-Zip.
The only times I have seen Winrar beat 7-zip in compression have been when compressing multimedia data, period. Otherwise 7-zip will compress consistently, and sometimes *significantly* better than Winrar.
However, Winrar has more features and and gui flexibility and is faster, but you have to pay for it.
Thats it, make up your mind as to which is better for you.
im amaze w/ 7Zip. i do observe the performance of the the compressor.. for me 7zip is more powerful i terms of compression, fasters decompression,. etc....
This is a 'real world' test I did in my computer:
1619 zip files of apps, docs, images, etc were compressed to both .7z and .rar using their default maximum compression settings. 7-zip beat WinRar in 903 of 1619, WinRar beat 7-zip in 716 of 1619.
That's it. Thanks 7-zip, and sorry for my grammar..
Log in to post a comment.