sfx2000 Posted October 14, 2018 Posted October 14, 2018 On 10/5/2018 at 6:07 AM, malvcr said: This are numbers without the "elapsed" parameter. Without AFALG type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes aes-256-cbc 19776.55k 23565.55k 24981.25k 25360.04k 25556.85k 25471.66k With AFALG type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes aes-256-cbc 8008.18k 27638.99k 251372.80k 1167974.40k infk 4513792.00k I am not sure ... but it seems that afalg it is not available in the stock Armbian ( I checked this with a supported M2+). With SBC seems important to have this available to use the machines potential. ALG and Cryptp Blocks can be a bit complicated... Based on your numbers - what moves more bits? ARM does... SOFTWARE Doing aes-256-cbc for 3s on 16 size blocks: 3708058 aes-256-cbc's in 3.00s Doing aes-256-cbc for 3s on 64 size blocks: 1104719 aes-256-cbc's in 3.00s Doing aes-256-cbc for 3s on 256 size blocks: 292752 aes-256-cbc's in 3.00s Doing aes-256-cbc for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 74300 aes-256-cbc's in 3.00s Doing aes-256-cbc for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 9329 aes-256-cbc's in 3.00s Doing aes-256-cbc for 3s on 16384 size blocks: 4662 aes-256-cbc's in 3.00s ALG Doing aes-256-cbc for 3s on 16 size blocks: 129499 aes-256-cbc's in 2.95s Doing aes-256-cbc for 3s on 64 size blocks: 115145 aes-256-cbc's in 3.00s Doing aes-256-cbc for 3s on 256 size blocks: 78540 aes-256-cbc's in 3.00s Doing aes-256-cbc for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 34189 aes-256-cbc's in 3.00s Doing aes-256-cbc for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 5404 aes-256-cbc's in 3.00s Doing aes-256-cbc for 3s on 16384 size blocks: 2756 aes-256-cbc's in 3.00s That being said, ALG is likely lower CPU usage overall, but running on ARM in your case is the right choice....
chwe Posted October 14, 2018 Posted October 14, 2018 On 10/5/2018 at 3:07 PM, malvcr said: I am configuring another BPI-R2 machine, and I was checking the benchmarks. For this I am using a 4.14.71 with Ubuntu. The numbers are not better than my previous attempts did you ever tried cryptodev for the R2. I think you had to compile openssl as well (as far as I now, there're some issues with openssls cryptodev implementation, but honestly never cared). Just out of curiosity.. I only gave it one shot back then cause the board had bigger issues than crypto in those days.
malvcr Posted October 18, 2018 Posted October 18, 2018 Quote did you ever tried cryptodev for the R2. I think you had to compile openssl as well (as far as I now, there're some issues with openssls cryptodev implementation, but honestly never cared). Just out of curiosity.. I only gave it one shot back then cause the board had bigger issues than crypto in those days. Interesting ... I though my reply was not stored or deleted. Anyway ... I was checking with cryptodev and the BPI 4.4.70 some time ago (I have some posts in the BPI forum about R2). It was faster, but what I didn't like about it is that cryptodev it is not accepted as an official kernel module. This is why I was working with AF_ALG. Also, although openssl works, it is a very big piece of code that could hide some "issues" for my security centered work (this already happened with openssl). This is also the reason I am not continuing using BOTAN, a very complete ciphering platform, and I prefer something embedded in the Kernel or my own small and light framework. In fact I am not 100% satisfied with AF_ALG. It is a very artificial method (with a terrible documentation) and it doesn't work very well for small block sizes. I was trying to mimic the openssl "speed" benchmark while encrypting with very big block sizes, but the "encript" openssl option doesn't permit me to work them. In such case, I prefer not to use openssl and to work my own tests with my code. Let me see if I can have a minimum AF_ALG testing and basic ciphering tool to share with clear enough source code to play with.
NicoD Posted October 20, 2018 Posted October 20, 2018 @tkaiser Hi Thomas. I'm planning to make a video about the use/uselessness/problems of benchmarking SBC's. Today I got a message from a subscriber about the Odroid H2, where he claimed the XU4 was a very slow SBC. His claim was backed up by "benchmarks" from ExplainingComputers. Here are those results. Video ExplainingComputers : Six SBC Benchmark: ODROID XU4, ROCKPro64 & More! Here the ROCK64 seems to outperform the XU4. We all know that's not right. I would use SBC-bench if ok for you and Blender to show the difference in results using different platforms, kernels and settings on the same SBC. I think with the M4. Lubuntu xenial armhf vs Lubuntu bionic armhf vs Lubuntu bionic arm64 and Armbian stretch vs bionic. Those differences are big. And the Raspberry 3B+ with ram overclock and without to show importance of ram+cpu. I would make different subjects. Of which : Problems with Benchmarks and sollutions SBC-Bench (how does it work, what does it do) Differences between different cortexes A7, A53, A72, ... (I'll need to do a lot of homework for that, if you could elaborate on it, please do) Importance of RAM speed with CPU speed, and other parameters Cheating manufacturers (Amlogic with C2, Raspberry Pi with 3B+, any others I should mention?) Conclusion... So with this I ask your permission to use SBC-bench, and quote you out the readme.md and eplanations and insights in the results.md file. And if you would like me to mention something, please tell me. Or if you want you could record an audio/video file with your words to add in the video(just a thought) Did you start a draft for the "Interpreting results" part yet? I'll be busy for at least another week gathering information. When done I'll share my results, and I''ll say what I'm going to use from your texts in the video. Sorry for the long post. Greetings.
sfx2000 Posted October 20, 2018 Posted October 20, 2018 2 hours ago, NicoD said: Here the ROCK64 seems to outperform the XU4. We all know that's not right. I would use SBC-bench if ok for you and Blender to show the difference in results using different platforms, kernels and settings on the same SBC. I think with the M4. Lubuntu xenial armhf vs Lubuntu bionic armhf vs Lubuntu bionic arm64 and Armbian stretch vs bionic. Those differences are big. And the Raspberry 3B+ with ram overclock and without to show importance of ram+cpu. I would make different subjects. Of which : Problems with Benchmarks and sollutions SBC-Bench (how does it work, what does it do) Differences between different cortexes A7, A53, A72, ... (I'll need to do a lot of homework for that, if you could elaborate on it, please do) Importance of RAM speed with CPU speed, and other parameters Cheating manufacturers (Amlogic with C2, Raspberry Pi with 3B+, any others I should mention?) Gah - watched the video - and a lot of problems across the board (pardon the pun). Different kernels, built with different versions of GCC, userland (for example, Raspbian userland is all ARMv6 with exception of the kernel for the A7/A53 boards).... (I wouldn't have included the any of the Pi's in the set of boards being evaluated because of the userland - <soapbox> nothing against Pi's in general, one must appreciate that 35M+ boards means they're doing something right, and they've spawned an entire HW/SW ecosystem around their platform, that's ok - and that ecosystem has in turn made affordable ARM boards available for hobbyists, makers, and developers - before Pi, if one wanted to do development around ARM, boards were expensive, and SW support was very limited to the vendor BSP - these days, it's a lot more open - not perfect, but much better than it was</soapbox>) Rock64 vs Odroid XU4 - Quad A53 vs A7/A15 big.LITTLE - the big.LITTLE is a challenge for the scheduler, and depending on the BSP from the OEM, it's easy to get wrong, where threads can land on the lesser preferred core, this is an issue even on Android, where much work has been done outside of the mainline kernels (ARM and Qualcomm, I know they've done a lot of research there, but much of that has not been pushed back to mainline). In my experience, with supported boards (for me this is Tinker and NanoPi NEO), Armbian is generally faster than the vendor's images - and that's doing Byte-Unixbench, which is discounted because it is compiler sensitive - that being said, it's still a useful tool when comparing apples to apples (e.g. tweaking settings on the same OS/Platform, but comparing Platform A to Platform B, one has to take the results with a grain of salt) I haven't found a lot of evidence of cheating by any of the SBC vendors - it's really hard to do with FOSS, compared to Android, where cheating has occurred with certain OEM's and specific benchmark APK's - Android has enough hooks to enable this kind of cheating in any event. sbc-bench, in my humble opinion, is a good benchmark for supported boards - as long as the boards being compared are all on the same version of Armbian - and this is made clear in the script comments (please review the script on github, and @tkaiser has been pushing updates, so if one has cloned the repo, it's worthwhile to do a git pull to get the latest revision. To answer your question about the different versions of Cortex... Small Cores - A7, A53 are the low power cores focused on efficiency Big Cores - A15, A12(A17), A72 - big cores... Think of it like Atom (Small Core) vs Core i3/i5/i7 (Big Core) - even at the same clock, the big core is going to get more work done, but perhaps at the cost of heat, so thermal solution needs to be considered. 1
sfx2000 Posted October 21, 2018 Posted October 21, 2018 (edited) On 10/20/2018 at 11:52 AM, NicoD said: o with this I ask your permission to use SBC-bench, and quote you out the readme.md and eplanations and insights in the results.md file. And if you would like me to mention something, please tell me. Or if you want you could record an audio/video file with your words to add in the video(just a thought) Did you start a draft for the "Interpreting results" part yet? Up to @tkaiser for results on sbc-bench... working on an addition - byte-unixbench and sorting out things... removing some gcc over optimizations, looking at threads... https://github.com/sfx2000/byte-unixbench It's a better bench than sysbench, and portable... Doing a -c 1 -1 and -c4 -i 1 keeps things short - however - letting it run thru pushes heat/throttles... UnixBench is interesting from a system perspective... RPI3 B Plus vs Tinker.... Tinker is 15 pounds of power in a 5 pound sack - RPi3 B+ is a CPU that can do better that it is with raspbian.... Tinkerboard - Cortex-A12/A17 - Armbian ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Benchmark Run: Sat Oct 20 2018 17:02:37 - 17:31:22 4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 8709974.2 746.4 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 1031.4 187.5 Execl Throughput 43.0 1095.7 254.8 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 91960.7 232.2 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 26583.4 160.6 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 246267.0 424.6 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 149851.8 120.5 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 25850.9 64.6 Process Creation 126.0 2429.0 192.8 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 2061.9 486.3 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 432.0 720.1 System Call Overhead 15000.0 442992.8 295.3 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score 258.2 System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 13538575.0 1160.1 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 1982.4 360.4 Execl Throughput 43.0 1752.7 407.6 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 87122.4 220.0 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 22948.6 138.7 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 281302.7 485.0 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 321233.1 258.2 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 40012.9 100.0 Process Creation 126.0 3820.3 303.2 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 3399.0 801.7 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 433.6 722.7 System Call Overhead 15000.0 952658.0 635.1 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score 373.1 Rpi 3B+ - Cortex-A53 - VCOS/ThreadX - Raspian ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Benchmark Run: Sat Oct 20 2018 17:02:32 - 17:30:38 4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 4324740.1 370.6 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 957.4 174.1 Execl Throughput 43.0 908.8 211.4 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 140312.9 354.3 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 40618.4 245.4 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 353296.2 609.1 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 280908.2 225.8 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 50734.2 126.8 Process Creation 126.0 2212.2 175.6 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 1780.5 419.9 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 575.7 959.5 System Call Overhead 15000.0 594784.0 396.5 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score 302.2 System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 17082008.4 1463.8 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 3803.4 691.5 Execl Throughput 43.0 2240.8 521.1 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 228921.9 578.1 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 62777.0 379.3 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 578721.9 997.8 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1112342.2 894.2 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 98478.8 246.2 Process Creation 126.0 4789.7 380.1 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 4464.7 1053.0 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 589.0 981.7 System Call Overhead 15000.0 2289227.2 1526.2 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score 705.6 Edited October 22, 2018 by sfx2000 clean up post formatting 1
NicoD Posted October 22, 2018 Posted October 22, 2018 @sfx2000 I don't know how to interpret those numbers. Why are the 2 different scores? What do you read out of those numbers? Why are they added up and made as a percentage? It are all results of different tests right? Then aren't you adding apples to pears and oranges? Just asking. I don't know. This is what I've got until now. Still need to do a lot. Now Stretch with desktop, nightly in bionic and many Blenders. I'm also going to use the Tinkerboard since many different images are available for it. If you know any more reasons why benchmarks can differ, please let me know. Cheers. I guess Thomas is on vacation. Haven't red anything of him since Thursday. (at least nothing new) Reasons for difference in performances -------------------------------------- throttling 32-bit/64-bit Difference in cores A53/A7/A15/A72 distro (ubuntu/debian...) distro version kernel version driver versions compiler version software version/outdated repositories desktop Mate/Xfce/LXDE/... display resolution/headless background processes cpu clockspeed ram clockspeed/latency ram useage /swap/zram updates process sheduler optimizations for the system/distro crypto engine for encryption Undervoltage config settings SBC-Bench with NanoPi M4 ------------------------ Armbian at 1.5Ghz/2Ghz Lubuntu at 1.4Ghz/1.8Ghz |SBC bench result |CPU Miner |7-zip small core |7-zip big core|7-zip multi avg. of 3 |Blender Armbian bionic http://ix.io/1nLh 10.23kH/s 1335 2005 8352 1h13m50s Armbian bionic nightly http://ix.io/1pDo 10.24kH/s 1329 1990 8292 1h13m28s Armbian stretch desktop http://ix.io/1odF 8.66kH/s 1350 1977 8400 1h14m12s Armbian stretch dsk nightly //ix.io/1pM0 8.80kH/s 1359 1993 8500 1h15m04s Armbian stretch core no fan //ix.io/1pKU 8.80-8.65kH/s 1353 1989 8461 Armbian stretch core withfan //ix.io/1pL9 8.76kH/s 1354 1988 8456 Armbian stretch core nightly //ix.io/1pLf 8.82kH/s 1357 1994 8494 Lubuntu arm64 http://ix.io/1oGJ 9.24kH/s CPU Miner 1056 1551 6943 1h28m13s Lubuntu Bionic armhf http://ix.io/1pJ1 1111 1769 7705 2h02m54s Lubuntu Xenial armhf http://ix.io/1oCb 989 1507 6339 2h20m51s
sfx2000 Posted October 22, 2018 Posted October 22, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, NicoD said: I don't know how to interpret those numbers. Why are the 2 different scores? What do you read out of those numbers? Why are they added up and made as a percentage? It are all results of different tests right? Then aren't you adding apples to pears and oranges? Just asking. I don't know. This is what I've got until now. Still need to do a lot. Now Stretch with desktop, nightly in bionic and many Blenders. I'm also going to use the Tinkerboard since many different images are available for it. If you know any more reasons why benchmarks can differ, please let me know. Cheers. I guess Thomas is on vacation. Haven't red anything of him since Thursday. (at least nothing new) Tinker looks bad on those numbers - it's better than they suggest... just that UnixBench, by default, it is going to run for about 21 minutes, and that's a strong load for any thermal issues - and Tinker has a fair amount of that - like mentioned - 15W of load in a 5W basket - Pi3B+ just does better there, as would any similar chip... The big core A12/A17 on Tinker does show and indicate the challenges with big.LITTLE where we have mixed cores - and we've seen this with Android, and excessive throttling there on certain handsets running Android. The problem with Tinker is that it's power hungry and runs hot, it's big core only - so under sustained load with a typical install - e.g. Asus provided heatsink, and a decent MicroUSB power supply that can drive the board most times - it does tend to suffer a bit, it becomes heat soaked, and hopelessly throttled - and the numbers above show this... To get best performance out of Tinker - one does have to look at driving power thru the 40-pin interface with a bench quality power supply, and active cooling for the chip - properly powered and cooled, it's a good challenger for Intel's Baytrail/Braswell chips - look at chromebooks, where the RK chip does a decent job... Edited October 22, 2018 by sfx2000 fix typo
NicoD Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 On 10/20/2018 at 8:52 PM, NicoD said: @tkaiser Video ExplainingComputers : Six SBC Benchmark: ODROID XU4, ROCKPro64 & More! Here the ROCK64 seems to outperform the XU4. We all know that's not right. @sfx2000 I can now explain how these scores came to be. Sysbench does 10x better on 64-bit than 32-bit. Also different versions are used. Gimp only uses 1 core. And also different versions. This works better in 32-bit than 64-bit. Boot times can't be compared. Rasps have Raspbian which is optimized for the Rasp. Different SBC's take longer to start the boot process. He used different OS'es(Ubuntu/Debian).@tkaiser There is a small problem with 7-zip scores because it's not using 100% when doing multi-core. The percentages differ with the same board and different OS'es. M4 Armbian stretch desktop http://ix.io/1odF Tot avr load: 518 M4 Armbian bionic desktop http://ix.io/1nLh Tot avr : 525 Small differences, but it makes it a bit harder to assess. Doing for example 2*2005 + 4*1335 = 9350 (armbian bionic) Gives a number of the potential performance since those scores are 100% of the used core. Maybe it's a bit more exact to compare. Also with Intel devices which do get 100% here. I also don't think it's good to use those total MIPS that's an average of the compressing and decompressing. It are 2 different numbers of different tasks. So I've got a problem with mixing them. I use decomressing MIPS here so it's a result of 1 task. 7-zip is the best tool I've found until now. It doesn't care about 32/64-bit. CPU miner seems to be ok for 64-bit. Blender also does well, but you can't compare 32-bit with 64-bit. A lot more results are to come.@tkaiser Would a short compiler test be useful for SBC-bench? I can't use sbc-bench on the Tinker Board in Elar Xubuntu bionic and Armbian Bionic. Too high system load. Even when booting into core. Armbian Stretch on-board Wifi stops working about one minute after boot. Can't connect to router. Wifi dongles give a lot of system load, so SBC-bench doesn't start. It wants to start with all wifi off. But then it can't download the software and upload the results. Maybe give an option to start after a while even when the system load isn't 0.1.These are not scores to compare SBC's. But to compare benchmark tools. Blender : BMW render @ 1080p Gimp : BMW render result 1080p Filters -> Artistic -> Van Gogh -> ok Sysbench : sysbench --test=cpu --cpu-max-prime=20000 -num-threads= "number of threads" run 7-zip : Numbers are average of 3 of decompressing only All tests are done with a fan when necessary so no throttling occurs. NanoPi M4 |SBC bench result |CPU Miner |7-zip s/c |7-zip b/c |7-zip multi avg. of 3 |Blender |GIMP |GTKPerf |Sysbench Armbian bionic http://ix.io/1nLh 10.23kH/s 1335 2005 8352 1h13m50s 0m29s5 5.06s 26763 Armbian bionic nightly http://ix.io/1pDo 10.24kH/s 1329 1990 8292 1h13m28s 0m29s 5.12s 26733 Armbian stretch desktop http://ix.io/1odF 8.66kH/s 1350 1977 8400 1h14m12s 0m31s 5.24s 3.1s Armbian stretch dsk nightly //ix.io/1pM0 8.80kH/s 1359 1993 8500 1h15m04s 0m31s 5.32s 3.3s Armbian stretch core no fan //ix.io/1pKU 8.80-8.65kH/s 1353 1989 8461 Armbian stretch core //ix.io/1pL9 8.76kH/s 1354 1988 8456 Armbian stretch core nightly //ix.io/1pLf 8.82kH/s 1357 1994 8494 Lubuntu arm64 http://ix.io/1oGJ 9.24kH/s CPU Miner 1056 1551 6943 1h28m13s Lubuntu Bionic armhf http://ix.io/1pJ1 1111 1769 7705 2h02m54s 0m57s 6.97s 1666 Lubuntu Xenial armhf http://ix.io/1oCb 989 1507 6339 2h20m51s 0m59s 49.77s 49.7s Asus Tinker board |SBC bench result |CPU Miner |7-zip big core |7-zip multi avg. of 3 |Blender |GIMP |GTKPerf |Sysbench Tinker OS 9.5 Stretch http://ix.io/1pRN 1983 7536 2h55m00s 1m19s 189.82s 63.7s Odroid C2 |SBC bench result |CPU Miner |7-zip big core |7-zip multi avg. of 3 |Blender |GIMP |GTKPerf |Sysbench Armbian Stretch Core http://ix.io/1pZu 4.65kH/s 1390 5342 Armbian Stretch Core Nightly //ix.io/1pZJ 4.66kH/s 1391 5340 Armbian Stretch Desktop NGHT //ix.io/1p02 4.59kH/s 1394 5356 1m23s 12s 6.0s Software versions ----------------- GIMP Blender GTKPerf SysBench SBC-bench M4 : Lubuntu Xenial armhf 2.79b 0.40 0.4.12 0.6.1 Lubuntu Bionic armhf : 2.8.22 2.79b 0.40 1.0.11 LuaJIT 2.1.0-beta3 0.6.1 Armbian Stretch desktop : 2.8.18 2.79b 0.40 0.4.12 0.6.1 Armbian Bionic : 2.8.22 2.79b 0.40 1.0.11 LuaJIT 2.1.0-beta3 0.6.1 Tinker : TinkerOS 9.5 Stretch : 2.8.18 2.79b 0.40 0.4.12 0.6.1 Odroid C2 : Armbian Stretch 9.5 : 2.8.18 0.40 0.4.12 CPU Clocks ---------- NanoPi M4 : Armbian Bionic/Stretch : 2x2Ghz + 4X1.5Ghz Lubuntu armhf/ARM64 : 2x1.8Ghz + 4X1.4Ghz Tinker : TinkerOS : 4x1.8Ghz Odroid C2 : Armbian Stretch : 4x1.5Ghz
sfx2000 Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 8 hours ago, NicoD said: I can't use sbc-bench on the Tinker Board in Elar Xubuntu bionic and Armbian Bionic. Too high system load. Even when booting into core. Armbian Stretch on-board Wifi stops working about one minute after boot. Can't connect to router. Wifi dongles give a lot of system load, so SBC-bench doesn't start. It wants to start with all wifi off. But then it can't download the software and upload the results. Maybe give an option to start after a while even when the system load isn't 0.1. With Tinker - check your power - if going over the MicroUSB, Tinker is very sensitive to poor quality cables and less than sufficient power supply current. Search around the forums, and there's good tips on getting Tinker stable with power -- @TonyMac32 has done a lot of work there documenting the challenges of this particular board.
NicoD Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 10 hours ago, sfx2000 said: With Tinker - check your power - if going over the MicroUSB, Tinker is very sensitive to poor quality cables and less than sufficient power supply current. Search around the forums, and there's good tips on getting Tinker stable with power -- @TonyMac32 has done a lot of work there documenting the challenges of this particular board. My power is stable. It's just the system load that stays too high. It did work in TinkerOS Stretch. But Xubuntu Bionic and Armbian Bionic keeps having a high system load. This because of the wifi. It doesn't work without internet, and I don't have a cable here. I'll redo it when I've finished the others. Cheers
lomady Posted November 18, 2018 Posted November 18, 2018 I am trying sbc-bench v0.6.2 on the dev branch of Orange Pi Plus 2E and see these errors: Checking cpufreq OPP... Done. ./sbc-bench.sh: line 783: [: too many arguments ./sbc-bench.sh: line 786: 277 217 - 277 217 : syntax error in expression (error token is "217 - 277 217 ") ATTENTION: Throttling might have occured. Check the log for details. Here are test results: http://ix.io/1skx
jeanrhum Posted November 29, 2018 Posted November 29, 2018 An additional bench with a snapdragon 820 soc (Inforce 6640): http://ix.io/1uOW I used default small heatsink without any fan, so it throtles on some benchmarks which heavy cpu loads like cpuminer.
sfx2000 Posted December 9, 2018 Posted December 9, 2018 On 11/29/2018 at 6:08 AM, jeanrhum said: An additional bench with a snapdragon 820 soc (Inforce 6640): http://ix.io/1uOW I used default small heatsink without any fan, so it throtles on some benchmarks which heavy cpu loads like cpuminer. Nice... pretty much lines up with what I've seen on other QC Kyro cores expensive board, but Qualcomm could make things a bit easier and capture some mindshare if they were to bring prices down into something more affordable.
sfx2000 Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 (edited) Stock Armbian 5.65 on FriendlyARM NeoPI Nano's... clean power and good cooling. NanoPi NEO v1.31 - http://ix.io/1vG7 NanoPi NEO2 v1.1 - http://ix.io/1vG2 Clean install on both boards and an apt-update/upgrade to get them current (Neo gets a newer kernel), no other tweaks - since both are very similar, it's a good comparison between Cortex-A7 (H3) vs. Cortex-A53 (H5) Anyways - UnixBench is still interesting as it flexs the SoC across different domains... NanoPi NEO - Cortex-A7 Single Core... System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 3719241.1 318.7 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 643.0 116.9 Execl Throughput 43.0 696.9 162.1 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 87513.0 221.0 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 28297.5 171.0 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 191648.4 330.4 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 208879.5 167.9 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 47797.1 119.5 Process Creation 126.0 1786.4 141.8 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 1433.1 338.0 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 387.6 646.1 System Call Overhead 15000.0 478281.7 318.9 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score 222.8 4 cores here on A7... System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 14873484.5 1274.5 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2572.7 467.8 Execl Throughput 43.0 1554.9 361.6 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 147529.5 372.5 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 46842.5 283.0 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 364298.5 628.1 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 832938.2 669.6 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 90871.1 227.2 Process Creation 126.0 3765.5 298.9 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 3105.9 732.5 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 396.2 660.3 System Call Overhead 15000.0 1835773.3 1223.8 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score 519.3 Now we do A53 - similar clocks - so we see arch improvements generally... System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 5508085.9 472.0 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 1036.1 188.4 Execl Throughput 43.0 1155.1 268.6 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 151730.9 383.2 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 48463.7 292.8 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 335435.4 578.3 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 385417.6 309.8 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 74227.1 185.6 Process Creation 126.0 3476.3 275.9 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 2217.9 523.1 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 621.3 1035.4 System Call Overhead 15000.0 600185.6 400.1 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score 363.5 4 cores all busy now - same clocks at the A7 NanoPI NEO above... System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT INDEX Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 22036695.3 1888.3 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 4145.6 753.8 Execl Throughput 43.0 2657.1 617.9 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 290036.5 732.4 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 83344.5 503.6 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 710744.4 1225.4 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1532780.9 1232.1 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 125344.5 313.4 Process Creation 126.0 6891.0 546.9 Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 4948.5 1167.1 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 626.0 1043.3 System Call Overhead 15000.0 2324664.3 1549.8 ======== System Benchmarks Index Score 857.7 So not as sexy as the OpenSSL performance, but the uplift between H3-Armv7-A and H5-Armv8 is always a good thing when everything else is close to equal... 40 percent improvement across the board - that's A53 vs A7 in general work... @tkaiser - sysbench is silly, I agree - but UnixBench is a fair flex if one is careful on compiler options not to over-optimize things there... Some boards get hopelessly heat soaked on this benchmark - TinkerBoard is a good example with the Asus supplied HS and good power - but with Armbian min-clocking to 600MHz, it cannot clock back enough to recover.... Edited December 10, 2018 by sfx2000 add unixbench scores
jeanrhum Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 A new test using a beelink minimx amlogic s905 with 1GB ram. I used one of the latest balbes img based on armbian 5.71 and kernel 4.20: http://ix.io/1z8U Spoiler Memory performance: memcpy: 1834.7 MB/s (0.6%) memset: 3924.8 MB/s (1.5%) Cpuminer total scores (5 minutes execution): 4.78,4.77,4.76,4.75,4.74,4.71 kH/s 7-zip total scores (3 consecutive runs): 4041,4048,4057 OpenSSL results: type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes aes-128-cbc 44011.37k 61326.74k 68516.35k 70565.89k 71207.59k 71221.25k aes-128-cbc 44017.37k 61322.33k 68508.25k 70565.89k 71193.94k 71215.79k aes-192-cbc 38983.60k 52261.74k 57460.22k 58889.56k 59340.12k 59359.23k aes-192-cbc 39258.25k 52644.86k 57848.49k 59313.15k 59752.45k 59763.37k aes-256-cbc 35264.76k 45792.32k 49716.48k 50805.08k 51137.19k 51123.54k aes-256-cbc 35510.54k 46115.58k 50063.53k 51144.70k 51486.72k 51500.37k Full results uploaded to http://ix.io/1z8U. Please check the log for anomalies (e.g. swapping or throttling happenend) and otherwise share this URL.
sfx2000 Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 4 hours ago, jeanrhum said: A new test using a beelink minimx amlogic s905 with 1GB ram. I used one of the latest balbes img based on armbian 5.71 and kernel 4.20: http://ix.io/1z8U Cool - as a point of reference - s915 on Android 6... openssl numbers are a bit silly unless one takes things in the larger context....
Werner Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 Nanopi NEO3 sbc-bench v0.7.2 Installing needed tools. This may take some time... Done. Checking cpufreq OPP... Done. Executing tinymembench. This will take a long time... Done. Executing OpenSSL benchmark. This will take 3 minutes... Done. Executing 7-zip benchmark. This will take a long time... Done. Executing cpuminer. This will take 5 minutes... Done. Checking cpufreq OPP... Done. ATTENTION: Throttling might have occured. Check the log for details. Memory performance: memcpy: 1948.3 MB/s memset: 8083.2 MB/s Cpuminer total scores (5 minutes execution): 4.08,4.07,4.06,4.05,4.04,4.03,4.02,4.01,3.99,3.98 kH/s 7-zip total scores (3 consecutive runs): 3150,3054,3051 OpenSSL results: type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes aes-128-cbc 125747.97k 378803.20k 745028.27k 1012273.83k 1130624.34k 1138742.61k aes-128-cbc 125746.60k 378807.36k 745014.19k 1012373.85k 1130438.66k 1138584.23k aes-192-cbc 120134.05k 338687.04k 610389.59k 781727.06k 851307.18k 854114.30k aes-192-cbc 120137.72k 338483.46k 610327.72k 781726.04k 851410.94k 855015.42k aes-256-cbc 116654.97k 312612.16k 529961.22k 654577.66k 702780.76k 705893.72k aes-256-cbc 116639.30k 312161.51k 530029.65k 653739.01k 702778.03k 705997.48k Full results uploaded to http://ix.io/2sIV. Please check the log for anomalies (e.g. swapping or throttling happenend) and otherwise share this URL. http://ix.io/2sIV
HoSe_Colonia Posted January 3, 2021 Posted January 3, 2021 Nanopi R4S with Armbian nightly build (21.02.0-trunk), my own build without any changes of the configs: http://ix.io/2KKP OpenSSL 1.1.1f, built on 31 Mar 2020 type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes aes-128-cbc 118362.99k 356091.88k 700289.11k 949098.15k 1058919.77k 1064566.78k aes-128-cbc 346525.56k 796991.72k 1156316.59k 1282400.60k 1348845.57k 1351647.23k aes-192-cbc 113063.16k 318472.23k 573401.43k 732813.31k 797354.67k 801674.58k aes-192-cbc 330636.27k 727768.81k 987592.02k 1138004.65k 1190903.81k 1193454.25k aes-256-cbc 109763.73k 293123.05k 497607.94k 613483.52k 657989.63k 656288.43k aes-256-cbc 319682.34k 665284.33k 904484.52k 980995.41k 1021831.85k 1024671.74k 7ZIP: Total: 6546,6603,6576 cpuminer: Total Scores: 10.52,10.51,10.50,10.49,10.48,10.43 No big surprises No case, small fan, no heatsink.
Werner Posted January 4, 2021 Posted January 4, 2021 NanoPi R4S 4GB model, fan, heatsink Spoiler bash ./sbc-bench.sh -c Average load is 0.1 or higher (way too much background activity). Waiting... System too busy for benchmarking: 08:31:22 up 2 min, 1 user, load average: 0.64, 0.45, 0.18 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:31:27 up 2 min, 1 user, load average: 0.59, 0.44, 0.18 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:31:32 up 2 min, 1 user, load average: 0.54, 0.43, 0.18 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:31:37 up 2 min, 1 user, load average: 0.50, 0.43, 0.18 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:31:42 up 2 min, 1 user, load average: 0.46, 0.42, 0.18 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:31:47 up 2 min, 1 user, load average: 0.42, 0.41, 0.18 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:31:52 up 2 min, 1 user, load average: 0.39, 0.40, 0.18 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:31:57 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.35, 0.40, 0.18 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:32:02 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.33, 0.39, 0.17 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:32:07 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.30, 0.38, 0.17 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:32:12 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.28, 0.38, 0.17 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:32:17 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.25, 0.37, 0.17 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:32:22 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.23, 0.36, 0.17 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:32:27 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.21, 0.36, 0.17 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:32:32 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.20, 0.35, 0.17 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:32:37 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.18, 0.35, 0.17 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:32:42 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.17, 0.34, 0.17 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:32:47 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.15, 0.33, 0.17 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:32:52 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.14, 0.33, 0.16 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:32:57 up 4 min, 1 user, load average: 0.13, 0.32, 0.16 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:33:02 up 4 min, 1 user, load average: 0.12, 0.32, 0.16 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:33:08 up 4 min, 1 user, load average: 0.11, 0.31, 0.16 System too busy for benchmarking: 08:33:13 up 4 min, 1 user, load average: 0.10, 0.31, 0.16 sbc-bench v0.7.6 Installing needed tools. This may take some time... Done. Checking cpufreq OPP... Done. Executing tinymembench. This will take a long time... Done. Executing OpenSSL benchmark. This will take 3 minutes... Done. Executing 7-zip benchmark. This will take a long time... Done. Executing cpuminer. This will take 5 minutes... Done. Checking cpufreq OPP... Done. Memory performance (big.LITTLE cores measured individually): memcpy: 1839.1 MB/s (0.1%) memset: 8421.5 MB/s (0.3%) memcpy: 3667.8 MB/s (0.2%) memset: 8480.1 MB/s (0.4%) Cpuminer total scores (5 minutes execution): 10.46,10.45,10.44,10.43,10.42 kH/s 7-zip total scores (3 consecutive runs): 6532,6534,6549 OpenSSL results (big.LITTLE cores measured individually): type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes aes-128-cbc 118349.22k 356071.47k 700238.34k 948960.94k 1058755.93k 1052923.22k aes-128-cbc 346531.03k 796995.50k 1156328.02k 1282408.79k 1350508.54k 1355639.47k aes-192-cbc 113043.27k 317670.08k 573346.65k 732681.90k 797062.49k 795579.73k aes-192-cbc 330704.38k 727769.98k 983647.32k 1136684.37k 1188001.11k 1192689.66k aes-256-cbc 109740.20k 292820.48k 497506.65k 613311.83k 657315.16k 658074.28k aes-256-cbc 319649.27k 665278.57k 904482.13k 981009.07k 1019696.47k 1019696.47k Unable to upload full test results. Please copy&paste the below stuff to pastebin.com and provide the URL. Check the output for throttling and swapping please. sbc-bench v0.7.6 FriendlyElec NanoPi R4S (Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:35:35 +0000) Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description: Ubuntu 20.04.1 LTS Release: 20.04 Codename: focal Armbian release info: BOARD=nanopi-r4s BOARD_NAME="NanoPi R4S" BOARDFAMILY=rk3399 BUILD_REPOSITORY_URL=https://github.com/armbian/build.git BUILD_REPOSITORY_COMMIT=64a7867a6 DISTRIBUTION_CODENAME=focal DISTRIBUTION_STATUS=supported VERSION=21.02.0-trunk LINUXFAMILY=rockchip64 BRANCH=dev ARCH=arm64 IMAGE_TYPE=user-built BOARD_TYPE=wip INITRD_ARCH=arm64 KERNEL_IMAGE_TYPE=Image /usr/bin/gcc (Ubuntu 9.3.0-17ubuntu1~20.04) 9.3.0 Uptime: 08:35:35 up 6 min, 2 users, load average: 1.11, 0.68, 0.32 Linux 5.10.4-rockchip64 (rt5) 01/04/2021 _aarch64_ (6 CPU) avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 8.19 0.05 3.38 1.87 0.00 86.51 Device tps kB_read/s kB_wrtn/s kB_dscd/s kB_read kB_wrtn kB_dscd loop0 1.87 29.48 0.00 0.00 11768 0 0 loop1 1.27 41.83 0.00 0.00 16696 0 0 loop2 1.04 33.36 0.00 0.00 13316 0 0 loop3 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.00 44 0 0 mmcblk1 40.73 1557.82 1451.38 38067.87 621773 579288 15194028 zram0 0.66 2.65 0.01 0.00 1056 4 0 zram1 0.61 1.07 31.44 0.00 428 12548 0 total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 3.7Gi 171Mi 2.5Gi 5.0Mi 1.1Gi 3.4Gi Swap: 1.9Gi 0B 1.9Gi Filename Type Size Used Priority /dev/zram0 partition 1945136 0 5 ########################################################################## Checking cpufreq OPP for cpu0-cpu3: Cpufreq OPP: 1416 Measured: 1413.157/1413.745/1412.878 Cpufreq OPP: 1200 Measured: 1196.551/1199.803/1197.230 Cpufreq OPP: 1008 Measured: 1005.443/1005.309/1005.260 Cpufreq OPP: 816 Measured: 813.170/812.840/810.052 Cpufreq OPP: 600 Measured: 577.932/597.600/597.391 Cpufreq OPP: 408 Measured: 405.341/405.554/404.648 Checking cpufreq OPP for cpu4-cpu5: Cpufreq OPP: 1800 Measured: 1798.387/1798.607/1798.407 Cpufreq OPP: 1608 Measured: 1606.477/1606.457/1605.997 Cpufreq OPP: 1416 Measured: 1414.410/1414.596/1414.410 Cpufreq OPP: 1200 Measured: 1198.383/1198.522/1198.536 Cpufreq OPP: 1008 Measured: 1006.312/1006.754/1006.116 Cpufreq OPP: 816 Measured: 814.392/814.613/814.473 Cpufreq OPP: 600 Measured: 598.418/598.378/598.452 Cpufreq OPP: 408 Measured: 406.031/406.470/406.524 ########################################################################## Executing tinymembench on a little core: tinymembench v0.4.9 (simple benchmark for memory throughput and latency) ========================================================================== == Memory bandwidth tests == == == == Note 1: 1MB = 1000000 bytes == == Note 2: Results for 'copy' tests show how many bytes can be == == copied per second (adding together read and writen == == bytes would have provided twice higher numbers) == == Note 3: 2-pass copy means that we are using a small temporary buffer == == to first fetch data into it, and only then write it to the == == destination (source -> L1 cache, L1 cache -> destination) == == Note 4: If sample standard deviation exceeds 0.1%, it is shown in == == brackets == ========================================================================== C copy backwards : 1749.9 MB/s (0.9%) C copy backwards (32 byte blocks) : 1750.2 MB/s (0.3%) C copy backwards (64 byte blocks) : 1773.7 MB/s (0.5%) C copy : 1828.5 MB/s (0.8%) C copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 1328.4 MB/s C copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 1588.4 MB/s (0.1%) C 2-pass copy : 1525.6 MB/s (0.2%) C 2-pass copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 1073.1 MB/s C 2-pass copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 932.1 MB/s (0.1%) C fill : 8390.7 MB/s (0.2%) C fill (shuffle within 16 byte blocks) : 8372.9 MB/s (0.3%) C fill (shuffle within 32 byte blocks) : 8369.9 MB/s (0.2%) C fill (shuffle within 64 byte blocks) : 8369.3 MB/s (0.3%) --- standard memcpy : 1839.1 MB/s (0.1%) standard memset : 8421.5 MB/s (0.3%) --- NEON LDP/STP copy : 1862.8 MB/s (0.2%) NEON LDP/STP copy pldl2strm (32 bytes step) : 1219.9 MB/s (0.9%) NEON LDP/STP copy pldl2strm (64 bytes step) : 1558.9 MB/s (0.1%) NEON LDP/STP copy pldl1keep (32 bytes step) : 2023.2 MB/s (0.1%) NEON LDP/STP copy pldl1keep (64 bytes step) : 2026.1 MB/s (0.1%) NEON LD1/ST1 copy : 1857.9 MB/s (0.2%) NEON STP fill : 8415.8 MB/s (1.0%) NEON STNP fill : 2513.9 MB/s (1.3%) ARM LDP/STP copy : 1864.6 MB/s (0.2%) ARM STP fill : 8416.3 MB/s (0.3%) ARM STNP fill : 2490.5 MB/s (1.4%) ========================================================================== == Memory latency test == == == == Average time is measured for random memory accesses in the buffers == == of different sizes. The larger is the buffer, the more significant == == are relative contributions of TLB, L1/L2 cache misses and SDRAM == == accesses. For extremely large buffer sizes we are expecting to see == == page table walk with several requests to SDRAM for almost every == == memory access (though 64MiB is not nearly large enough to experience == == this effect to its fullest). == == == == Note 1: All the numbers are representing extra time, which needs to == == be added to L1 cache latency. The cycle timings for L1 cache == == latency can be usually found in the processor documentation. == == Note 2: Dual random read means that we are simultaneously performing == == two independent memory accesses at a time. In the case if == == the memory subsystem can't handle multiple outstanding == == requests, dual random read has the same timings as two == == single reads performed one after another. == ========================================================================== block size : single random read / dual random read, [MADV_NOHUGEPAGE] 1024 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 2048 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 4096 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 8192 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 16384 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 32768 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 65536 : 4.8 ns / 8.1 ns 131072 : 7.4 ns / 11.1 ns 262144 : 8.7 ns / 12.3 ns 524288 : 10.5 ns / 14.6 ns 1048576 : 84.1 ns / 129.7 ns 2097152 : 124.5 ns / 167.6 ns 4194304 : 150.5 ns / 188.2 ns 8388608 : 164.0 ns / 198.5 ns 16777216 : 172.2 ns / 205.0 ns 33554432 : 177.5 ns / 210.1 ns 67108864 : 181.7 ns / 213.9 ns block size : single random read / dual random read, [MADV_HUGEPAGE] 1024 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 2048 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 4096 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 8192 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 16384 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 32768 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 65536 : 4.8 ns / 8.1 ns 131072 : 7.4 ns / 11.1 ns 262144 : 8.7 ns / 12.6 ns 524288 : 10.5 ns / 14.7 ns 1048576 : 86.2 ns / 132.8 ns 2097152 : 127.0 ns / 171.0 ns 4194304 : 147.4 ns / 183.9 ns 8388608 : 157.1 ns / 188.5 ns 16777216 : 161.8 ns / 190.2 ns 33554432 : 164.2 ns / 190.9 ns 67108864 : 165.5 ns / 191.2 ns Executing tinymembench on a big core: tinymembench v0.4.9 (simple benchmark for memory throughput and latency) ========================================================================== == Memory bandwidth tests == == == == Note 1: 1MB = 1000000 bytes == == Note 2: Results for 'copy' tests show how many bytes can be == == copied per second (adding together read and writen == == bytes would have provided twice higher numbers) == == Note 3: 2-pass copy means that we are using a small temporary buffer == == to first fetch data into it, and only then write it to the == == destination (source -> L1 cache, L1 cache -> destination) == == Note 4: If sample standard deviation exceeds 0.1%, it is shown in == == brackets == ========================================================================== C copy backwards : 3607.1 MB/s (0.1%) C copy backwards (32 byte blocks) : 3610.4 MB/s (0.2%) C copy backwards (64 byte blocks) : 3613.3 MB/s (0.2%) C copy : 3660.4 MB/s (0.2%) C copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 3657.2 MB/s (0.2%) C copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 3657.7 MB/s (0.5%) C 2-pass copy : 3335.5 MB/s C 2-pass copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 3406.4 MB/s (0.1%) C 2-pass copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 3406.2 MB/s C fill : 8465.5 MB/s (0.3%) C fill (shuffle within 16 byte blocks) : 8468.7 MB/s (0.2%) C fill (shuffle within 32 byte blocks) : 8469.0 MB/s (0.2%) C fill (shuffle within 64 byte blocks) : 8469.8 MB/s (0.2%) --- standard memcpy : 3667.8 MB/s (0.2%) standard memset : 8480.1 MB/s (0.4%) --- NEON LDP/STP copy : 3663.1 MB/s (0.1%) NEON LDP/STP copy pldl2strm (32 bytes step) : 3695.0 MB/s (0.2%) NEON LDP/STP copy pldl2strm (64 bytes step) : 3695.1 MB/s (0.2%) NEON LDP/STP copy pldl1keep (32 bytes step) : 3656.0 MB/s (0.2%) NEON LDP/STP copy pldl1keep (64 bytes step) : 3656.1 MB/s (0.2%) NEON LD1/ST1 copy : 3663.6 MB/s (0.1%) NEON STP fill : 8468.8 MB/s (0.3%) NEON STNP fill : 8452.1 MB/s (0.2%) ARM LDP/STP copy : 3663.7 MB/s (0.2%) ARM STP fill : 8464.9 MB/s (0.3%) ARM STNP fill : 8422.3 MB/s (0.2%) ========================================================================== == Memory latency test == == == == Average time is measured for random memory accesses in the buffers == == of different sizes. The larger is the buffer, the more significant == == are relative contributions of TLB, L1/L2 cache misses and SDRAM == == accesses. For extremely large buffer sizes we are expecting to see == == page table walk with several requests to SDRAM for almost every == == memory access (though 64MiB is not nearly large enough to experience == == this effect to its fullest). == == == == Note 1: All the numbers are representing extra time, which needs to == == be added to L1 cache latency. The cycle timings for L1 cache == == latency can be usually found in the processor documentation. == == Note 2: Dual random read means that we are simultaneously performing == == two independent memory accesses at a time. In the case if == == the memory subsystem can't handle multiple outstanding == == requests, dual random read has the same timings as two == == single reads performed one after another. == ========================================================================== block size : single random read / dual random read, [MADV_NOHUGEPAGE] 1024 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 2048 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 4096 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 8192 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 16384 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 32768 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 65536 : 4.5 ns / 7.1 ns 131072 : 6.8 ns / 9.6 ns 262144 : 9.8 ns / 12.8 ns 524288 : 11.4 ns / 14.6 ns 1048576 : 18.0 ns / 26.1 ns 2097152 : 97.0 ns / 146.3 ns 4194304 : 136.8 ns / 183.0 ns 8388608 : 162.0 ns / 204.3 ns 16777216 : 173.9 ns / 214.0 ns 33554432 : 180.6 ns / 219.5 ns 67108864 : 192.6 ns / 236.1 ns block size : single random read / dual random read, [MADV_HUGEPAGE] 1024 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 2048 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 4096 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 8192 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 16384 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 32768 : 0.0 ns / 0.0 ns 65536 : 4.5 ns / 7.1 ns 131072 : 6.7 ns / 9.6 ns 262144 : 7.9 ns / 10.5 ns 524288 : 8.5 ns / 10.9 ns 1048576 : 14.4 ns / 21.5 ns 2097152 : 96.8 ns / 147.2 ns 4194304 : 133.7 ns / 178.6 ns 8388608 : 154.9 ns / 194.3 ns 16777216 : 164.0 ns / 196.8 ns 33554432 : 169.0 ns / 199.1 ns 67108864 : 173.6 ns / 201.5 ns ########################################################################## OpenSSL 1.1.1f, built on 31 Mar 2020 type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes aes-128-cbc 118349.22k 356071.47k 700238.34k 948960.94k 1058755.93k 1052923.22k aes-128-cbc 346531.03k 796995.50k 1156328.02k 1282408.79k 1350508.54k 1355639.47k aes-192-cbc 113043.27k 317670.08k 573346.65k 732681.90k 797062.49k 795579.73k aes-192-cbc 330704.38k 727769.98k 983647.32k 1136684.37k 1188001.11k 1192689.66k aes-256-cbc 109740.20k 292820.48k 497506.65k 613311.83k 657315.16k 658074.28k aes-256-cbc 319649.27k 665278.57k 904482.13k 981009.07k 1019696.47k 1019696.47k ########################################################################## 7-Zip (a) [64] 16.02 : Copyright (c) 1999-2016 Igor Pavlov : 2016-05-21 p7zip Version 16.02 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,64 bits,6 CPUs LE) LE CPU Freq: - - - - - - - - - RAM size: 3799 MB, # CPU hardware threads: 6 RAM usage: 1323 MB, # Benchmark threads: 6 Compressing | Decompressing Dict Speed Usage R/U Rating | Speed Usage R/U Rating KiB/s % MIPS MIPS | KiB/s % MIPS MIPS 22: 769 100 749 749 | 15135 100 1291 1291 23: 731 100 745 745 | 14824 100 1283 1283 24: 704 100 758 758 | 14518 100 1274 1274 25: 676 100 773 773 | 14159 100 1260 1260 ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------ Avr: 100 756 756 | 100 1277 1277 Tot: 100 1017 1017 7-Zip (a) [64] 16.02 : Copyright (c) 1999-2016 Igor Pavlov : 2016-05-21 p7zip Version 16.02 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,64 bits,6 CPUs LE) LE CPU Freq: - - - - - - - - - RAM size: 3799 MB, # CPU hardware threads: 6 RAM usage: 1323 MB, # Benchmark threads: 6 Compressing | Decompressing Dict Speed Usage R/U Rating | Speed Usage R/U Rating KiB/s % MIPS MIPS | KiB/s % MIPS MIPS 22: 1502 100 1462 1462 | 21932 100 1870 1870 23: 1410 100 1438 1438 | 21521 100 1862 1862 24: 1352 100 1455 1455 | 21105 100 1853 1853 25: 1299 100 1484 1484 | 20604 100 1834 1834 ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------ Avr: 100 1460 1459 | 100 1855 1855 Tot: 100 1657 1657 ########################################################################## 7-Zip (a) [64] 16.02 : Copyright (c) 1999-2016 Igor Pavlov : 2016-05-21 p7zip Version 16.02 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,64 bits,6 CPUs LE) LE CPU Freq: 64000000 64000000 - 64000000 - - - - - RAM size: 3799 MB, # CPU hardware threads: 6 RAM usage: 1323 MB, # Benchmark threads: 6 Compressing | Decompressing Dict Speed Usage R/U Rating | Speed Usage R/U Rating KiB/s % MIPS MIPS | KiB/s % MIPS MIPS 22: 5218 543 935 5076 | 94726 526 1535 8078 23: 5046 568 906 5141 | 92623 527 1521 8015 24: 4729 563 903 5085 | 90283 525 1510 7924 25: 4524 576 897 5166 | 87319 522 1489 7771 ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------ Avr: 562 910 5117 | 525 1514 7947 Tot: 544 1212 6532 7-Zip (a) [64] 16.02 : Copyright (c) 1999-2016 Igor Pavlov : 2016-05-21 p7zip Version 16.02 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,64 bits,6 CPUs LE) LE CPU Freq: - - - - - - - - - RAM size: 3799 MB, # CPU hardware threads: 6 RAM usage: 1323 MB, # Benchmark threads: 6 Compressing | Decompressing Dict Speed Usage R/U Rating | Speed Usage R/U Rating KiB/s % MIPS MIPS | KiB/s % MIPS MIPS 22: 5328 551 941 5183 | 94361 525 1533 8047 23: 5106 571 911 5203 | 91941 522 1524 7956 24: 4795 572 901 5156 | 90562 526 1511 7949 25: 4368 545 916 4988 | 87541 523 1490 7791 ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------ Avr: 560 917 5133 | 524 1515 7936 Tot: 542 1216 6534 7-Zip (a) [64] 16.02 : Copyright (c) 1999-2016 Igor Pavlov : 2016-05-21 p7zip Version 16.02 (locale=en_US.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,64 bits,6 CPUs LE) LE CPU Freq: - - - - - - - - - RAM size: 3799 MB, # CPU hardware threads: 6 RAM usage: 1323 MB, # Benchmark threads: 6 Compressing | Decompressing Dict Speed Usage R/U Rating | Speed Usage R/U Rating KiB/s % MIPS MIPS | KiB/s % MIPS MIPS 22: 5415 559 943 5269 | 93890 522 1534 8007 23: 5060 560 920 5156 | 91938 522 1524 7955 24: 4784 566 910 5144 | 89899 522 1511 7891 25: 4488 564 909 5125 | 88148 525 1494 7845 ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------ Avr: 562 920 5173 | 523 1516 7924 Tot: 543 1218 6549 Compression: 5117,5133,5173 Decompression: 7947,7936,7924 Total: 6532,6534,6549 ########################################################################## ** cpuminer-multi 1.3.3 by tpruvot@github ** BTC donation address: 1FhDPLPpw18X4srecguG3MxJYe4a1JsZnd (tpruvot) [2021-01-04 09:17:48] 6 miner threads started, using 'scrypt' algorithm. [2021-01-04 09:17:49] CPU #4: 2.34 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:49] CPU #5: 2.36 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:49] CPU #1: 1.41 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:49] CPU #0: 1.41 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:49] CPU #3: 1.41 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:49] CPU #2: 1.41 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:52] Total: 10.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:53] Total: 10.44 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:58] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:58] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:58] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:58] CPU #0: 1.41 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:58] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:58] CPU #5: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:17:58] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:03] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:08] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:08] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:08] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:08] CPU #0: 1.40 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:08] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:08] CPU #5: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:08] Total: 10.45 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:13] Total: 10.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:18] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:18] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:18] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:18] CPU #0: 1.41 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:18] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:18] CPU #5: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:18] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:23] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:28] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:28] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:28] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:28] CPU #0: 1.40 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:28] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:28] CPU #5: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:28] Total: 10.45 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:33] Total: 10.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:38] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:38] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:38] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:38] CPU #0: 1.41 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:38] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:38] CPU #5: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:38] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:43] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:48] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:48] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:48] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:48] CPU #0: 1.40 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:48] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:48] CPU #5: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:48] Total: 10.45 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:53] Total: 10.45 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:58] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:58] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:58] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:58] CPU #0: 1.40 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:58] CPU #4: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:58] CPU #5: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:18:58] Total: 10.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:03] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:08] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:08] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:08] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:08] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:08] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:08] CPU #5: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:08] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:14] CPU #5: 2.37 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:14] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:18] Total: 10.45 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:18] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:18] CPU #0: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:18] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:18] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:18] CPU #4: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:23] CPU #5: 2.37 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:23] Total: 10.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:27] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:28] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:28] CPU #2: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:28] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:28] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:28] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:28] Total: 10.45 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:33] CPU #5: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:33] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:38] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:38] CPU #0: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:38] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:38] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:38] CPU #4: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:38] Total: 10.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:43] CPU #5: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:43] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:48] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:48] CPU #2: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:48] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:48] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:48] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:48] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:53] CPU #5: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:53] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:58] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:58] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:58] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:58] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:58] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:19:58] Total: 10.45 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:03] CPU #5: 2.37 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:03] Total: 10.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:08] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:08] CPU #2: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:08] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:08] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:08] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:08] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:13] CPU #5: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:13] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:18] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:18] CPU #2: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:18] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:18] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:18] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:18] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:23] CPU #5: 2.37 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:23] Total: 10.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:28] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:28] CPU #2: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:28] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:28] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:28] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:28] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:33] CPU #5: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:33] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:38] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:38] CPU #2: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:38] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:38] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:38] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:38] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:43] CPU #5: 2.37 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:43] Total: 10.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:48] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:48] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:48] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:48] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:48] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:48] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:53] CPU #5: 2.37 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:53] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:58] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:58] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:58] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:58] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:58] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:20:58] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:03] CPU #5: 2.37 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:03] Total: 10.45 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:08] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:08] CPU #0: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:08] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:08] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:08] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:08] Total: 10.44 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:13] CPU #5: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:13] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:18] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:18] CPU #2: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:18] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:18] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:18] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:18] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:23] CPU #5: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:23] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:28] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:28] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:28] CPU #0: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:28] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:28] CPU #4: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:28] Total: 10.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:33] CPU #5: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:33] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:38] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:38] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:38] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:38] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:38] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:38] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:43] CPU #5: 2.37 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:43] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:48] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:48] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:48] CPU #0: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:48] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:48] CPU #4: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:48] Total: 10.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:53] CPU #5: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:53] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:58] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:58] CPU #2: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:58] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:58] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:58] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:21:58] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:03] CPU #5: 2.37 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:03] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:08] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:08] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:08] CPU #0: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:08] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:08] CPU #4: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:08] Total: 10.44 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:13] CPU #5: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:13] Total: 10.45 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:18] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:18] CPU #0: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:18] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:18] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:18] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:18] Total: 10.45 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:23] CPU #5: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:23] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:28] CPU #2: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:28] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:28] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:28] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:28] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:28] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:33] CPU #5: 2.36 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:33] Total: 10.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:38] CPU #2: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:38] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:38] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:38] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:38] CPU #4: 2.39 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:38] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:43] CPU #5: 2.38 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:43] Total: 10.46 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:48] CPU #2: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:48] CPU #0: 1.43 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:48] CPU #1: 1.42 kH/s [2021-01-04 09:22:48] CPU #3: 1.42 kH/s Total Scores: 10.46,10.45,10.44,10.43,10.42 ########################################################################## Testing clockspeeds again. System health now: Time big.LITTLE load %cpu %sys %usr %nice %io %irq Temp 09:22:30: 1800/1416MHz 6.03 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 66.7°C Checking cpufreq OPP for cpu0-cpu3: Cpufreq OPP: 1416 Measured: 1413.373/1414.813/1413.621 Cpufreq OPP: 1200 Measured: 1197.605/1197.716/1184.138 Cpufreq OPP: 1008 Measured: 666.724/656.601/632.450 Cpufreq OPP: 816 Measured: 809.407/809.685/808.595 Cpufreq OPP: 600 Measured: 594.631/593.856/595.146 Cpufreq OPP: 408 Measured: 404.503/403.610/404.469 Checking cpufreq OPP for cpu4-cpu5: Cpufreq OPP: 1800 Measured: 1414.406/1075.246/1507.186 Cpufreq OPP: 1608 Measured: 1602.392/1165.659/1410.472 Cpufreq OPP: 1416 Measured: 808.545/1413.404/1412.971 Cpufreq OPP: 1200 Measured: 876.844/1198.342/1197.717 Cpufreq OPP: 1008 Measured: 1005.774/810.712/876.898 Cpufreq OPP: 816 Measured: 813.901/813.701/813.771 Cpufreq OPP: 600 Measured: 597.924/597.620/598.263 Cpufreq OPP: 408 Measured: 405.997/406.299/406.270 ########################################################################## System health while running tinymembench: Time big.LITTLE load %cpu %sys %usr %nice %io %irq Temp 08:35:46: 1800/1416MHz 1.09 13% 3% 8% 0% 1% 0% 36.2°C 08:37:46: 1800/1416MHz 1.01 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 35.6°C 08:39:46: 1800/1416MHz 1.02 17% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 33.9°C 08:41:46: 1800/1416MHz 1.03 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 33.3°C 08:43:46: 1800/1416MHz 1.01 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 33.9°C 08:45:46: 1800/1416MHz 1.01 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 40.6°C 08:47:46: 1800/1416MHz 1.07 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 41.1°C 08:49:47: 1800/1416MHz 1.01 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 37.5°C 08:51:47: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 37.5°C 08:53:47: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 36.9°C System health while running OpenSSL benchmark: Time big.LITTLE load %cpu %sys %usr %nice %io %irq Temp 08:55:01: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 15% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 36.9°C 08:55:11: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 35.6°C 08:55:21: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 39.4°C 08:55:31: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 39.4°C 08:55:41: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 36.9°C 08:55:51: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 36.2°C 08:56:01: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 40.0°C 08:56:12: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 41.1°C 08:56:22: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 36.2°C 08:56:32: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 38.8°C 08:56:42: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 40.0°C System health while running 7-zip single core benchmark: Time big.LITTLE load %cpu %sys %usr %nice %io %irq Temp 08:56:49: 1800/1416MHz 1.00 16% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 40.0°C 08:57:49: 1800/1416MHz 2.87 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 35.0°C 08:58:49: 1800/1416MHz 4.85 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 34.4°C 08:59:49: 1800/1416MHz 4.88 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 34.4°C 09:00:49: 1800/1416MHz 5.59 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 33.9°C 09:01:49: 1800/1416MHz 4.45 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 33.9°C 09:02:49: 1800/1416MHz 5.30 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 34.4°C 09:03:49: 1800/1416MHz 4.62 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 33.9°C 09:04:50: 1800/1416MHz 3.95 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 33.9°C 09:05:50: 1800/1416MHz 3.89 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 34.4°C 09:06:50: 1800/1416MHz 5.23 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 34.4°C 09:07:50: 1800/1416MHz 5.32 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 39.4°C 09:08:50: 1800/1416MHz 5.39 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 40.6°C 09:09:50: 1800/1416MHz 5.22 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 40.0°C 09:10:50: 1800/1416MHz 5.47 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 40.6°C 09:11:50: 1800/1416MHz 4.34 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 40.0°C 09:12:50: 1800/1416MHz 5.22 16% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 40.6°C System health while running 7-zip multi core benchmark: Time big.LITTLE load %cpu %sys %usr %nice %io %irq Temp 09:13:01: 1800/1416MHz 5.34 16% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 42.2°C 09:13:21: 1800/1416MHz 5.43 88% 0% 87% 0% 0% 0% 47.5°C 09:13:42: 1800/1416MHz 5.40 87% 1% 86% 0% 0% 0% 52.8°C 09:14:02: 1800/1416MHz 5.77 91% 1% 90% 0% 0% 0% 53.9°C 09:14:22: 1800/1416MHz 5.82 91% 2% 89% 0% 0% 0% 52.8°C 09:14:42: 1800/1416MHz 5.94 88% 1% 87% 0% 0% 0% 55.6°C 09:15:04: 1800/1416MHz 5.78 88% 1% 87% 0% 0% 0% 56.7°C 09:15:24: 1800/1416MHz 6.00 89% 1% 88% 0% 0% 0% 54.4°C 09:15:45: 1800/1416MHz 5.80 85% 1% 83% 0% 0% 0% 55.0°C 09:16:06: 1800/1416MHz 5.84 90% 2% 88% 0% 0% 0% 57.2°C 09:16:28: 1800/1416MHz 6.10 90% 0% 89% 0% 0% 0% 58.9°C 09:16:49: 1800/1416MHz 6.35 86% 0% 86% 0% 0% 0% 58.9°C 09:17:10: 1800/1416MHz 6.29 89% 1% 88% 0% 0% 0% 58.9°C 09:17:30: 1800/1416MHz 6.03 86% 2% 84% 0% 0% 0% 56.1°C System health while running cpuminer: Time big.LITTLE load %cpu %sys %usr %nice %io %irq Temp 09:17:49: 1800/1416MHz 6.09 23% 0% 22% 0% 0% 0% 52.8°C 09:18:10: 1800/1416MHz 6.12 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 62.5°C 09:18:32: 1800/1416MHz 6.08 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 63.1°C 09:18:54: 1800/1416MHz 6.06 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 64.4°C 09:19:16: 1800/1416MHz 6.10 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 65.0°C 09:19:37: 1800/1416MHz 6.07 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 65.6°C 09:19:59: 1800/1416MHz 6.05 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 66.1°C 09:20:20: 1800/1416MHz 6.09 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 66.1°C 09:20:42: 1800/1416MHz 6.06 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 66.1°C 09:21:04: 1800/1416MHz 6.04 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 66.1°C 09:21:25: 1800/1416MHz 6.08 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 66.7°C 09:21:47: 1800/1416MHz 6.06 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 66.7°C 09:22:08: 1800/1416MHz 6.04 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 67.2°C 09:22:30: 1800/1416MHz 6.03 100% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 66.7°C ########################################################################## Linux 5.10.4-rockchip64 (rt5) 01/04/2021 _aarch64_ (6 CPU) avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 29.74 0.01 0.75 0.23 0.00 69.28 Device tps kB_read/s kB_wrtn/s kB_dscd/s kB_read kB_wrtn kB_dscd loop0 0.23 3.63 0.00 0.00 11768 0 0 loop1 0.16 5.15 0.00 0.00 16696 0 0 loop2 0.13 4.11 0.00 0.00 13316 0 0 loop3 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 44 0 0 mmcblk1 5.03 192.04 178.84 4685.12 622801 579972 15194028 zram0 0.08 0.33 0.00 0.00 1056 4 0 zram1 0.09 0.13 3.91 0.00 428 12684 0 total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 3.7Gi 228Mi 2.4Gi 6.0Mi 1.1Gi 3.3Gi Swap: 1.9Gi 0B 1.9Gi Filename Type Size Used Priority /dev/zram0 partition 1945136 0 5 Architecture: aarch64 CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit Byte Order: Little Endian CPU(s): 6 On-line CPU(s) list: 0-5 Thread(s) per core: 1 Core(s) per socket: 3 Socket(s): 2 NUMA node(s): 1 Vendor ID: ARM Model: 4 Model name: Cortex-A53 Stepping: r0p4 CPU max MHz: 1800.0000 CPU min MHz: 408.0000 BogoMIPS: 48.00 NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-5 Vulnerability Itlb multihit: Not affected Vulnerability L1tf: Not affected Vulnerability Mds: Not affected Vulnerability Meltdown: Not affected Vulnerability Spec store bypass: Vulnerable Vulnerability Spectre v1: Mitigation; __user pointer sanitization Vulnerability Spectre v2: Vulnerable Vulnerability Srbds: Not affected Vulnerability Tsx async abort: Not affected Flags: fp asimd evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 cpuid
![m][sko](https://forum.armbian.com/uploads/n2a/n2a-180904eb9612afa23a4c3358385bd86f384613e3.avatars_letters_gd.png){kind=avatar}
Recommended Posts