==========================================================================
== 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 : 1431.9 MB/s (0.5%)
C copy backwards (32 byte blocks) : 1441.3 MB/s (0.3%)
C copy backwards (64 byte blocks) : 1445.9 MB/s (0.2%)
C copy : 1380.5 MB/s (1.4%)
C copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 1072.5 MB/s
C copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 1047.3 MB/s
C 2-pass copy : 1260.6 MB/s
C 2-pass copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 849.5 MB/s
C 2-pass copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 821.5 MB/s
C fill : 5013.8 MB/s (0.4%)
C fill (shuffle within 16 byte blocks) : 5013.3 MB/s (0.4%)
C fill (shuffle within 32 byte blocks) : 4992.9 MB/s
C fill (shuffle within 64 byte blocks) : 5015.8 MB/s (0.4%)
NEON 64x2 COPY : 1462.5 MB/s
NEON 64x2x4 COPY : 1466.7 MB/s
NEON 64x1x4_x2 COPY : 1440.6 MB/s (0.5%)
NEON 64x2 COPY prefetch x2 : 330.3 MB/s
NEON 64x2x4 COPY prefetch x1 : 1582.1 MB/s
NEON 64x2 COPY prefetch x1 : 1611.0 MB/s (0.2%)
NEON 64x2x4 COPY prefetch x1 : 1582.4 MB/s
---
standard memcpy : 1456.3 MB/s
standard memset : 5013.3 MB/s (0.3%)
---
NEON LDP/STP copy : 1439.2 MB/s (0.5%)
NEON LDP/STP copy pldl2strm (32 bytes step) : 922.1 MB/s (0.8%)
NEON LDP/STP copy pldl2strm (64 bytes step) : 1192.0 MB/s (0.3%)
NEON LDP/STP copy pldl1keep (32 bytes step) : 1643.2 MB/s
NEON LDP/STP copy pldl1keep (64 bytes step) : 1651.8 MB/s
NEON LD1/ST1 copy : 1434.3 MB/s (0.7%)
NEON STP fill : 5015.8 MB/s (0.3%)
NEON STNP fill : 3161.0 MB/s (0.9%)
ARM LDP/STP copy : 1439.2 MB/s (0.7%)
ARM STP fill : 5016.2 MB/s (0.4%)
ARM STNP fill : 3230.9 MB/s (1.8%)
==========================================================================
== Framebuffer read tests. ==
== ==
== Many ARM devices use a part of the system memory as the framebuffer, ==
== typically mapped as uncached but with write-combining enabled. ==
== Writes to such framebuffers are quite fast, but reads are much ==
== slower and very sensitive to the alignment and the selection of ==
== CPU instructions which are used for accessing memory. ==
== ==
== Many x86 systems allocate the framebuffer in the GPU memory, ==
== accessible for the CPU via a relatively slow PCI-E bus. Moreover, ==
== PCI-E is asymmetric and handles reads a lot worse than writes. ==
== ==
== If uncached framebuffer reads are reasonably fast (at least 100 MB/s ==
== or preferably >300 MB/s), then using the shadow framebuffer layer ==
== is not necessary in Xorg DDX drivers, resulting in a nice overall ==
== performance improvement. For example, the xf86-video-fbturbo DDX ==
== uses this trick. ==
==========================================================================
NEON LDP/STP copy (from framebuffer) : 176.0 MB/s
NEON LDP/STP 2-pass copy (from framebuffer) : 171.2 MB/s
NEON LD1/ST1 copy (from framebuffer) : 44.7 MB/s
NEON LD1/ST1 2-pass copy (from framebuffer) : 44.3 MB/s
ARM LDP/STP copy (from framebuffer) : 89.0 MB/s
ARM LDP/STP 2-pass copy (from framebuffer) : 87.7 MB/s
==========================================================================
== 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 : 4.3 ns / 7.2 ns
131072 : 6.5 ns / 10.3 ns
262144 : 7.7 ns / 11.6 ns
524288 : 8.3 ns / 12.2 ns
1048576 : 9.8 ns / 14.5 ns
2097152 : 95.0 ns / 144.7 ns
4194304 : 143.0 ns / 189.3 ns
8388608 : 167.5 ns / 204.7 ns
16777216 : 180.9 ns / 212.1 ns
33554432 : 188.1 ns / 216.2 ns
67108864 : 191.9 ns / 218.6 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 : 4.3 ns / 7.2 ns
131072 : 6.5 ns / 10.3 ns
262144 : 7.7 ns / 11.6 ns
524288 : 8.3 ns / 12.2 ns
1048576 : 9.7 ns / 13.8 ns
2097152 : 94.2 ns / 143.5 ns
4194304 : 136.6 ns / 181.5 ns
8388608 : 157.9 ns / 193.5 ns
16777216 : 168.3 ns / 197.6 ns
33554432 : 173.3 ns / 199.2 ns
67108864 : 175.8 ns / 199.9 ns
Basic information
Linux/system information
Benchmark results
CPU
Power
stress-ng --matrix 0): 2.40 Wtop500HPL benchmark: TODO WDisk
microSD (Lexar V30 U3 A1 633X 64GB)
Network
iperf3results:iperf3 -c $SERVER_IP: TODO Mbpsiperf3 --reverse -c $SERVER_IP: TODO Mbpsiperf3 --bidir -c $SERVER_IP: TODO Mbps up, TODO Mbps down(Be sure to test all interfaces, noting any that are non-functional.)
GPU
Memory
tinymembenchresults:Click to expand memory benchmark result
tinymembench v0.4.10 (simple benchmark for memory throughput and latency)
Phoronix Test Suite
Results from pi-general-benchmark.sh:
(https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2401052-NE-TEST6962944)