Benchmarks Of The 24-Core ARM Socionext 96Boards Developerbox

Written by Michael Larabel in Processors on 29 August 2018. Page 2 of 4. 41 Comments
Socionext SynQuacer E- DeveloperBox vs. Other ARM SBCs vs. Intel/AMD

I/O testing obviously isn't the focus of this comparison, but tossing one test in at least. PCI Express and SATA 3.0 on this 96Boards Developerbox allows at least for better storage potential than the low-cost ARM single board computers.

Socionext SynQuacer E- DeveloperBox vs. Other ARM SBCs vs. Intel/AMD
Socionext SynQuacer E- DeveloperBox vs. Other ARM SBCs vs. Intel/AMD

Even with two sticks of DDR4-2133 UDIMMs, the memory performance was significantly less than the Intel/AMD DDR4 systems or even the NVIDIA Jetson TX2 with its onboard LPDDR4.

Socionext SynQuacer E- DeveloperBox vs. Other ARM SBCs vs. Intel/AMD

In 7-zip compression, the 24-core Developerbox lost out to the dual-core+HT Core i3 7100 and other x86_64 processors tested.

Socionext SynQuacer E- DeveloperBox vs. Other ARM SBCs vs. Intel/AMD

On this 24-core AArch64 box, it took just under 15 minutes to compile the Linux kernel in its default configuration. It's good for ARM speeds, but not nearly as fast as the Intel Core and AMD Ryzen CPUs that cost significantly less. Or the AMD Threadripper 2 benchmarks can build a Linux x86_64 default kernel in about a half-minute.

Socionext SynQuacer E- DeveloperBox vs. Other ARM SBCs vs. Intel/AMD

The 24-core AArch64 box was at least able to pull slightly ahead of the Intel Core i3 7100 in the C-Ray multi-threaded ray-tracer.


Related Articles