Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARM Cortex-A9 PandaBoard ES Benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ARM Cortex-A9 PandaBoard ES Benchmarks

    Phoronix: ARM Cortex-A9 PandaBoard ES Benchmarks

    The performance of the dual-core ARM Cortex-A9 OMAP4460 configuration as found on the PandaBoard ES is quite commendable and in this Phoronix review the dual-core 1.2GHz ARM system with PowerVR SGX540 graphics is being compared to several Intel Atom, Pentium M, and Core Duo configurations running Ubuntu Linux throughout. To spice things up, the pre-production OLPC XO-1.75 was also thrown into the testing mix with its single-core ARMv7 800MHz Sheeva processor.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16888

  • #2
    seems interesting

    Not too bad for an ARM cpu, power consumption would also be nice. The Core duo still owned it in raw preformance, let alone c2d, 1st gen I series and sandy bridge.


    I wait for the day my phone can be a renderslave to my pc.

    Comment


    • #3
      Were these all multithreaded benchmarks, then? I missed if you mentioned or not. And more important (IMO) what's the performance per watt?

      Comment


      • #4
        How about rounding articles off with things like power consumption, likely availability of the processor in netbooks/tablets/phones etc. and a conclusion?

        Comment


        • #5
          PandaBoard video hardware acceleration

          I bought the original PandaBoard with the aim of using it as a HTPC/home entertainment system. Apart from the PowerVR GPU, the Panda also packs hardware video acceleration from TI (called the ducati engine). The Ubuntu 11.10 PPA now has a working set of libraries (libdce etc) and firmware to play HD video. As far as I can tell only gstreamer supports libdce currently, so no ffmpeg based apps will work. Totem works ok with the occasional crash.

          Comment


          • #6
            Great to see some ARM vs x86 benchmarks.

            So the slowest of the slowest single-core Intel Atom processor is in most cases still faster than a dual-core ARM processor. Sort of what I expected but nice to see some benchmark results confirm this.

            Comment


            • #7
              Nice little report but needs a few things.

              First; because this is ARM it might help to clue us in on the processors structure a little bit. That is what it has execution unit wise. There is so much variability here that one needs to be reminded. In the intel world it is pretty easy to remember that say AVX is on Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer. With ARM it is hard to remember who implemented what.

              Second; it would pay to explain your negativity towards the GPU. I can imagine it has to do with its closed nature, but one shouldn't have to guess.

              Third; you need to include an AMD solution in the mix. Specifically a Zacate based board. We already know that Core is several times faster, what we need to understand is how processors targeting the same general market fare.

              Fourth; with ARM all over the place (compared to ATOM) performance wise it might be interesting to try to determine the impact of compiler performance on the numbers. That is if at all possible build with GCC and CLang. If compiler maturity on ARM is an issue this might highlight where one compiler is weak with respect to the other. Or maybe the ARM architecture just has inherent weaknesses relative to ATOM. Which goes back to detailing exactly what is included on chip with this specific ARM implementation.

              In any event keep up the good work. It is actually a bit of a shock that ARM is now delivering this level of performance. With larger caches and 2GHz clocks A9 would likely beat ATOM at far lower powers.

              Comment


              • #8
                Firstly,

                Thanks for the article. However can you please please please put in power metrics next time? It's one thing to show how ARM stands vs x86 in terms of performance but for my own curiosity the benches are begging for performance per watt.

                If the ARM cpu can do 25% of the performance at a 100th of the power that's a big win in my eyes (well for certain scenarios of course).

                Cheers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bradmccormac View Post
                  Firstly,

                  Thanks for the article. However can you please please please put in power metrics next time? It's one thing to show how ARM stands vs x86 in terms of performance but for my own curiosity the benches are begging for performance per watt.

                  If the ARM cpu can do 25% of the performance at a 100th of the power that's a big win in my eyes (well for certain scenarios of course).

                  Cheers.
                  I explained in the article why I didn't do power tests...
                  Michael Larabel
                  http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Michael View Post
                    I explained in the article why I didn't do power tests...
                    after doing phoronix for all these years you should have learned that people just look at the pictures

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Michael View Post
                      I explained in the article why I didn't do power tests...
                      (As well as why you don't like the graphics situation)

                      It is possible to circumvent the issue with some laptops--at least on Thinkpads, you can set the BIOS to default to external display only.
                      With some other laptops, you can switch the video to an external monitor. It still wouldn't be a perfect comparison, but it beats no numbers.

                      What would be a fair comparison are the various small x86 boards (mainly VIA and Intel, perhaps Intel/ION)--they'll be cheaper (newegg has $60-80 without ION, ~ $120+ for the ION boards) and roughly similar hardware.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ibidem View Post
                        It is possible to circumvent the issue with some laptops--at least on Thinkpads, you can set the BIOS to default to external display only.
                        With some other laptops, you can switch the video to an external monitor. It still wouldn't be a perfect comparison, but it beats no numbers.
                        Exactly.

                        This was a great review, but it's of limited relevance without power consumption figures.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ibidem View Post
                          What would be a fair comparison are the various small x86 boards (mainly VIA and Intel, perhaps Intel/ION)--they'll be cheaper (newegg has $60-80 without ION, ~ $120+ for the ION boards) and roughly similar hardware.
                          And when there's so many non-Premium AdBlock'ers, those systems come from where?
                          Michael Larabel
                          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by aragon View Post
                            This was a great review, but it's of limited relevance without power consumption figures.
                            I've been scouring the PandaBoard site and the FAQ suggests that this board spikes over 1.2A under heavy load, and their AC power supply suggestion is for 4A max current handling. These currents are at 5V.

                            So peak power consumption of around 10W would be my guess, FWIW.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Michael View Post
                              And when there's so many non-Premium AdBlock'ers, those systems come from where?
                              Do you honestly think that you would have much revenue from the people that use AdBlock if they didn't use it? Revenue comes from clicks, not views. The people that use AdBlock wouldn't click, so you would get no revenue from them regardless.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X