In this work, Chinese fir samples with a size of 400 mm (L) by 50 mm (W) 30 mm (H) weretaken as specimens, and drying rate and energy consumption were compared under the conditions, inwhich the absolute pressure was 0.02 , 0.04 , 0.06 and 0.10 MPa, respectively, and the temperature was80 oC. The results showed that, when the moisture content (MC) of the samples was above fibersaturation point (FSP), the vacuum drying rate was 0.96-1.24 times as high as the ambient pressuredrying rate. However, when it was below FSP, the vacuum drying rate was 1.26-1.32 times as high as theambient pressure drying rate. At the same time, when the MC was above FSP, the energy consumptionof vacuum drying was 81.1%-95.9% of that of ambient pressure drying; when the MC was below FSP,the energy consumption of vacuum drying was 62.40%-69.40% of that of ambient pressure drying.Therefore, the vacuum drying was superior to the ambient pressure drying in terms of drying rate andenergy consumption. In this work, Chinese fir samples with a size of 400 mm (L) by 50 mm (W) 30 mm (H) weretaken as specimens, and drying rate and energy consumption were compared under the conditions, inwhich the absolute pressure was 0.02, 0.04, 0.06 and 0.10 MPa, respectively, and the temperature was 80 oC. The results showed that when the moisture content (MC) of the samples was above fibersaturation point (FSP), the vacuum drying rate was 0.96-1.24 times as high as the ambient pressuredrying rate. However, when it was below FSP, the vacuum drying rate was 1.26-1.32 times as high as theambient pressure drying rate. when the same time, when the MC was above FSP, the energy consumptionof vacuum drying was 81.1% -95.9% of that of ambient pressure drying; when the MC was below FSP, the energy consumption of vacuum drying was 62.40% -69.40% of that of ambient pressure drying.Therefore, the vacuum drying was superior to the ambient pressure drying terms of drying rate andenergy consumption