I think the Divx folks made a common and all too easy mistake with their claim. You cannot reduce ANYTHING by more than 100%. But I doubt it's intentional. The mistake is in how you express the difference between the new and the old. If it had been taking 100 minutes to encode a file, and it now takes 28.5 minutes to encode the file, the new time is a reduction of 71.5% of the old time. But the new encoding process is also 3.5 times faster than the old one. The mistake would be in calling 3.5 times faster a 350% reduction. This happens all the time when folks try to make comparisons. I took 100 minutes to walk to work this morning, but I only took 50 minutes to walk home. Did I walk twice as fast on the way home, or 50% slower on the way in? Was I 100% faster going home, or 1/2 as quick coming in. All are correct. The moral? Don't trust the numbers, verify with your own testing.