Well, let's take a break from important decision-making, and post some benchmarks about VPU/GPU. I have used the official FriendlyELEC's Ubuntu Xenial image, kernel 4.4.126, 32-bit architecture. That allowed me to easily create a media configuration script, based on the existing RK3288 one. All tests were done with "performance" governor, both in CPU and GPU.   The 32-bit script can be downloaded here. It is not yet a release version, so there may be some rough edges. If the community demands it, I might create a 64-bit version in the future.   1. VPU 4K Video Decoding capabilities I'll make a chart comparing NanoPC-T4 (RK3399) with ASUS TinkerBoard (RK3328) and Khadas VIM2 (Amlogic S912). Rockchips acceleration was tested with our well-known MPV, while for Amlogic we used @balbes150's LibreElec: BOARD H.264 HEVC VP9 HEVC-10 VP9-10 ------------------------------------------------------ TB (RK3288) ✓ ✓ x x x T4 (RK3399) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ x VIM2 (S912) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ The first thing to comment here is that VP9 10-bit HDR video playback is not supported by the board, which on the other hand is in accordance with Rockchip's official specs. HDR is only supported for H.264 and H.265 (we didn't test the former, though, but we can assume it works if the latter does). It should not be a software issue, since we tested also in Android with the Rockchip Media Player App, and we only got a messagebox saying "10-bit video is not supported". So, in this aspect, RK3399 is inferior to the competitor's S912, which can play VP9-HDR10 videos.   Besides that, all supported videos played with perfect smoothness and vivid colors.   2. GPU OpenGL-ES & WebGL Time for 3D capabilities of the Mali-T860 with 4 cores @800 Mhz. As references for the comparison, we chose this time the TinkerBoard (Mali-T760, 4 cores@600), and the Odroid XU4 (Mali-T628, 6 cores@600). All three malis share the Midgard architecture, though they represent the first, second and third generation. We didn't use this time the S912, because it has no Linux Mali support, plus performance would be much lower with only 3 cores. Kernel for TB is Armbian's 4.4.131-rockchip, while for XU4 is 4.14.30. For the Rockchips we used their custom X server with Glamor enabled, while for XU4 we used Crashoverride's armsoc X driver: Results are in frames per second: BOARD Glmark2-X Glmark2-offscreen WebGL Aquarium (Chromium) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TB (RK3288) 57 547 30-34 T4 (RK3399) 52 340 33-36 XU4 (S5422) 428 747 39-44 In the first place, Rockchip's X server seems to be better tuned for the RK3288, where we see that FPS almost match the Vsync (60 FPS). In the case of RK3399, we see it is significantly lower, while we also see tearing that does not happen with the other Rockchip SoC. XU4's driver works in a different way, and so it is not limited by Vsync, but nevertheless it doesn't show any tearing. Offscreen performance is strangely low in RK3399 (probably a matter of a not-so-well tuned Mali binary?). WebGL performs better in 3399 than 3288, but the difference is not as big as one should expect considering the superiority of both CPU and GPU. XU4 clearly sticks from the others.   3. GPU OpenCL performance Now OpenCL performance with GPU miners. That can give us a better idea of the raw processing power of the GPU since there are no X drivers getting in the way. We used cgminer for the skein algo, and sgminer for lyra2rev2. Results are averages from running the miner for two hours, with an intensity as high as possible monitoring that no hardware errors happened. BOARD Skein (Mh/s) Lyra2rev2 (Kh/s) ------------------------------------------------ TB (RK3288) 1.150 42 T4 (RK3399) 1.150 60 XU4 (S5422) 1.440 72 It is shocking that performance in Skein algo is about the same for RK3288 and RK3399, but using CPU miners for the same algorithm the TinkerBoard  also gives surprisingly high numbers (higher than XU4). For that reason, I think there must be something in the TB that makes it specially suited for Skein (maybe the dual-channel RAM?), so results must be taken carefully. On the other hand, Lyra2 numbers are more or less as expected.     Remember that all these tests are made in a armhf system. Maybe arm64 can give us some surprise in the future. Or maybe Rockchip can make improvements to their binaries/libraries giving better performance.
  • Reputation Points