Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.. :P I only gave it one shot back then cause the board had bigger issues than crypto in those days.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.
afbeelding.png.5e0a3f2d9112c091762fa05ac76d8d42.png

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.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by sfx2000
clean up post formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by sfx2000
fix typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2018 at 8:52 PM, NicoD said:

@tkaiser

afbeelding.png.5e0a3f2d9112c091762fa05ac76d8d42.png

Video ExplainingComputers : &nbsp;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



 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by sfx2000
add unixbench scores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Guidelines