geerlingguy
commented
1 month ago After speaking with Milk-V about some of their RISC-V boards, they wanted to send over a Jupiter for me to test. I plan on running it through my usual tests, and also seeing how the board behaves as a regular ol' PC ITX board, testing front panel connectors, USB 3.0 and other IO. It also comes with a heatsink/fan (a pretty small one, mind you), and an IO shield. I haven't unboxed it fully but will hopefully do that tomorrow or Monday!
carbonfix
hokamilkv
ThomasKaiser
Icenowy
apcameron
Basic information
Linux/system information
Benchmark results
CPU
Power
stress-ng --matrix 0): 8 Wtop500HPL benchmark: 10.6 W(Note: Tests were performed using a 12V 8A power adapter. When I switched to a 27W Aergon PWR GaN adapter, idle draw was measured at 10W, and
stress-ng --matrix 0at 10W)Disk
MakerDisk A1 128GB microSD
Kioxia XG8 2TB NVMe SSD
32GB SanDisk eMMC Module V1.2
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
iperf3results:Built-in 1 Gbps LAN
iperf3 -c $SERVER_IP: 939 Mbpsiperf3 -c $SERVER_IP --reverse: 885 Mbpsiperf3 -c $SERVER_IP --bidir: 942 Mbps up, 136 Mbps downBuilt-in WiFi 6
So far, I have been unable to bring up this interface. See WiFi not working under Ubuntu or Bianbu.
iperf3 -c $SERVER_IP: 362 Mbpsiperf3 -c $SERVER_IP --reverse: 313 Mbpsiperf3 -c $SERVER_IP --bidir: 228 Mbps up, 140 Mbps downGPU
glmark2-es2-waylandresults: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
tinymembenchresults: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 : 3073.1 MB/s (0.6%) C copy backwards (32 byte blocks) : 662.7 MB/s C copy backwards (64 byte blocks) : 3079.1 MB/s (0.6%) C copy : 3081.3 MB/s (0.5%) C copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 3087.2 MB/s (0.6%) C copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 3087.5 MB/s (0.7%) C 2-pass copy : 2953.6 MB/s C 2-pass copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 2947.5 MB/s (0.5%) C 2-pass copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 2948.0 MB/s (0.4%) C fill : 7570.4 MB/s (0.3%) C fill (shuffle within 16 byte blocks) : 7574.7 MB/s (0.4%) C fill (shuffle within 32 byte blocks) : 675.4 MB/s (0.2%) C fill (shuffle within 64 byte blocks) : 675.3 MB/s (0.2%) --- standard memcpy : 2886.5 MB/s (0.8%) standard memset : 7577.1 MB/s (0.5%) ========================================================================== == 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 : 0.1 ns / 0.1 ns 2048 : 0.1 ns / 0.1 ns 4096 : 0.1 ns / 0.1 ns 8192 : 0.1 ns / 0.1 ns 16384 : 0.1 ns / 0.1 ns 32768 : 0.2 ns / 0.2 ns 65536 : 9.3 ns / 14.3 ns 131072 : 15.9 ns / 21.2 ns 262144 : 19.3 ns / 23.8 ns 524288 : 38.4 ns / 52.5 ns 1048576 : 119.4 ns / 175.0 ns 2097152 : 169.3 ns / 221.4 ns 4194304 : 198.2 ns / 241.2 ns 8388608 : 223.5 ns / 268.5 ns 16777216 : 238.2 ns / 288.6 ns 33554432 : 248.7 ns / 306.2 ns 67108864 : 281.1 ns / 361.7 ns ```sbc-benchresultsRun sbc-bench and paste a link to the results here: https://github.com/ThomasKaiser/sbc-bench/issues/96 / https://0x0.st/X904.bin
Phoronix Test Suite
Results from pi-general-benchmark.sh: