I thought I would try some speed tests and the results are below; the images were ones I found on my hard drive - nothing special about them. There are only one lot of results for each image below but I ran the tests a few times and there was not a great difference in the results.
Using a 0.8MB jpg image
| Method |
Time seconds |
File size |
Width x height |
| Original image | | 853789
| 1667 x 2500
|
| Using Imagick | 0.431061983109 | 7052
| 100 x 149
|
| Imagemagick thumbnail | 0.573105096817 | 7074
| 100 x 150
|
| Imagemagick thumbnail and the "size hint" | 0.293253183365 | 6951
| 100 x 150
|
| Imagemagick resize | 1.31543397903 | 15992
| 100 x 150
|
| GD | 2.12855386734 | 5416
| 100 x 149
|
Note: GD failed with a memory error at any images over this size. I assume I could allocate more memory but it shows ImageMagick uses less memory ?
Using a 2.8MB jpg image
| Method |
Time seconds |
File size |
Width x height |
| Original image | | 2962005
| 1667 x 2500
|
| Using Imagick | 0.569258928299 | 20539
| 100 x 149
|
| Imagemagick thumbnail | 0.713599920273 | 20602
| 100 x 150
|
| Imagemagick thumbnail and the "size hint" | 0.204536914825 | 20260
| 100 x 150
|
| Imagemagick resize | 1.46319389343 | 29484
| 100 x 150
|
| GD | 2.22840690613 | 4986
| 100 x 149
|
Using a 1.26MB png image
| Method |
Time seconds |
File size |
Width x height |
| Original image | | 1330464
| 647 x 476
|
| Using Imagick | 0.199882030487 | 15889
| 100 x 73
|
| Imagemagick thumbnail | 0.244040966034 | 38564
| 100 x 74
|
| Imagemagick thumbnail and the "size hint" | 0.225668907166 | 38564
| 100 x 74
|
| Imagemagick resize | 0.232110023499 | 38187
| 100 x 74
|
| GD | 0.420181035995 | 13157
| 100 x 73
|
Note: For some reason GD did not retain the transparency