Open geerlingguy opened 6 months ago
I realize I set up this repository after the Zero 2W came out, and I don't have full numbers for it.
Heh, the lack of RAM really kills a few applications, like the video transcode seems to have just locked up after a few minutes:
x264 2022-02-22:
pts/x264-2.7.0 [Video Input: Bosphorus 4K]
Test 1 of 2
Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
Estimated Test Run-Time: 10 Minutes
Estimated Time To Completion: 20 Minutes [23:25 UTC]
Started Run 1 @ 23:06:03
I've let it run a few hours now and I can't SSH in from another terminal either.
After running Geekbench 6 for a couple hours, it eventually hung, seemingly out of memory:
BTW, how did you manage to get the Pi Zero 2W connected through USB Ethernet? Any guidance here? I saw many tutorials online, but they are very old and don't work anymore.
I have a rather ancient micro USB to Ethernet 10/100 Mbps adapter that I just plugged in, and it worked. Didn't have to do anything special. I can't find where I even bought it from back in the day!
Basic information
Linux/system information
Benchmark results
CPU
Power
stress-ng --matrix 0
): 3 Wtop500
HPL benchmark: 2.1 WDisk
Kioxia Exceria 32GB microSD
Run benchmark on any attached storage device (e.g. eMMC, microSD, NVMe, SATA) and add results under an additional heading.
Also consider running PiBenchmarks.com script.
Network
iperf3
results:Ethernet (USB 2.0 100 Mbps adapter)
iperf3 -c $SERVER_IP
: 5.69 Mbpsiperf3 --reverse -c $SERVER_IP
: 6.92 Mbpsiperf3 --bidir -c $SERVER_IP
: 3.87 Mbps up, 2.94 Mbps downWiFi (built-in)
iperf3 -c $SERVER_IP
: 32.8 Mbpsiperf3 --reverse -c $SERVER_IP
: 41.9 Mbpsiperf3 --bidir -c $SERVER_IP
: 11.1 Mbps up, 30.9 Mbps down(Be sure to test all interfaces, noting any that are non-functional.)
GPU
glmark2-es2
results:Note: This benchmark requires an active display on the device. Not all devices may be able to run
glmark2-es2
, so in that case, make a note and move on!TODO: See this issue for discussion about a full suite of standardized GPU benchmarks.
Memory
tinymembench
results:Click to expand memory benchmark result
``` tinymembench v0.4.10 (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 : 1268.1 MB/s (0.5%) C copy backwards (32 byte blocks) : 1278.6 MB/s C copy backwards (64 byte blocks) : 1225.9 MB/s (1.5%) C copy : 1220.5 MB/s (0.8%) C copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 1030.6 MB/s C copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 1174.9 MB/s C 2-pass copy : 1045.9 MB/s C 2-pass copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 772.9 MB/s C 2-pass copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 474.9 MB/s (0.5%) C fill : 1766.6 MB/s C fill (shuffle within 16 byte blocks) : 1771.4 MB/s (0.4%) C fill (shuffle within 32 byte blocks) : 1763.6 MB/s (0.3%) sony C fill (shuffle within 64 byte blocks) : 1768.5 MB/s (2.3%) NEON 64x2 COPY : 1288.4 MB/s NEON 64x2x4 COPY : 1287.3 MB/s (0.2%) NEON 64x1x4_x2 COPY : 1285.4 MB/s NEON 64x2 COPY prefetch x2 : 363.4 MB/s NEON 64x2x4 COPY prefetch x1 : 1313.2 MB/s NEON 64x2 COPY prefetch x1 : 1316.3 MB/s NEON 64x2x4 COPY prefetch x1 : 1313.2 MB/s (0.2%) --- standard memcpy : 1263.6 MB/s (0.2%) standard memset : 1770.8 MB/s (0.2%) --- NEON LDP/STP copy : 1270.5 MB/s (0.4%) NEON LDP/STP copy pldl2strm (32 bytes step) : 940.3 MB/s (1.2%) NEON LDP/STP copy pldl2strm (64 bytes step) : 1150.7 MB/s (0.1%) NEON LDP/STP copy pldl1keep (32 bytes step) : 1310.1 MB/s NEON LDP/STP copy pldl1keep (64 bytes step) : 1310.5 MB/s NEON LD1/ST1 copy : 1264.6 MB/s (0.5%) NEON STP fill : 1772.4 MB/s (0.4%) NEON STNP fill : 1056.4 MB/s ARM LDP/STP copy : 1283.6 MB/s (0.5%) ARM STP fill : 1769.9 MB/s (0.4%) ARM STNP fill : 1061.5 MB/s (0.4%) ========================================================================== == 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 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 / 0.1 ns 65536 : 6.5 ns / 11.0 ns 131072 : 9.9 ns / 15.7 ns 262144 : 11.6 ns / 17.8 ns 524288 : 13.4 ns / 20.2 ns 1048576 : 80.2 ns / 123.9 ns 2097152 : 117.5 ns / 161.4 ns 4194304 : 143.3 ns / 183.3 ns 8388608 : 157.1 ns / 193.6 ns 16777216 : 165.5 ns / 200.2 ns 33554432 : 170.9 ns / 204.6 ns 67108864 : 174.2 ns / 207.8 ns ```sbc-bench
resultsRun sbc-bench and paste a link to the results here:
Phoronix Test Suite
Results from pi-general-benchmark.sh: