geerlingguy
commented
1 month ago Some coverage: CNX, Bret.dk, Hackaday, Tao of Mac, makerbymistake.
It's the first time an Intel-based SBC has challenged Raspberry Pi / RK3588 Arm boards in pricing. Running windows with 4/8 GB of RAM would be a bit of a pain, but Linux on it could be interesting.
Just because it's x86 doesn't mean it will be perfect, though (as I experienced with the LattePanda Mu). It is a very intriguing board, Intel must have a massive stock of N100 SoCs, with how many devices are integrating the things!
camerahacks
rcarmo
alansill
willgryan
bretmlw
webash
schtschenok
Basic information
Linux/system information
Benchmark results
CPU
Power
stress-ng --matrix 0): 18.5 Wtop500HPL benchmark: 16 WDisk
Kioxia BG6 2230 1TB NVMe SSD (KBG40ZNS1T02)
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 2.5 Gbps Ethernet (Intel I226-V)
iperf3 -c $SERVER_IP: 2.35 Gbpsiperf3 -c $SERVER_IP --reverse: 1.77 Gbpsiperf3 -c $SERVER_IP --bidir: 2.34 Gbps up, 1.77 Gbps downBuilt-in Realtek WiFi 6 (RTL8852BE)
iperf3 -c $SERVER_IP: 651 Mbpsiperf3 -c $SERVER_IP --reverse: 319 Mbpsiperf3 -c $SERVER_IP --bidir: 596 Mbps up, 88 Mbps downGPU
glmark2-es2results: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 : 5373.3 MB/s (0.2%) C copy backwards (32 byte blocks) : 5372.2 MB/s C copy backwards (64 byte blocks) : 5372.9 MB/s C copy : 5456.5 MB/s C copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 4020.8 MB/s C copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 4143.6 MB/s (0.2%) C 2-pass copy : 5217.0 MB/s (0.1%) C 2-pass copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 3174.1 MB/s C 2-pass copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 3175.5 MB/s (0.1%) C fill : 7946.8 MB/s C fill (shuffle within 16 byte blocks) : 7943.5 MB/s C fill (shuffle within 32 byte blocks) : 7946.5 MB/s C fill (shuffle within 64 byte blocks) : 7944.3 MB/s (0.2%) --- standard memcpy : 8138.6 MB/s standard memset : 7968.4 MB/s --- MOVSB copy : 5436.5 MB/s MOVSD copy : 5275.4 MB/s (2.6%) SSE2 copy : 4847.0 MB/s SSE2 nontemporal copy : 7660.0 MB/s (0.8%) SSE2 copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 4677.2 MB/s (0.3%) SSE2 copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 4690.3 MB/s (0.2%) SSE2 nontemporal copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 6329.2 MB/s (0.3%) SSE2 nontemporal copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 6597.4 MB/s SSE2 2-pass copy : 4644.6 MB/s (1.5%) SSE2 2-pass copy prefetched (32 bytes step) : 3697.0 MB/s (0.7%) SSE2 2-pass copy prefetched (64 bytes step) : 3767.6 MB/s SSE2 2-pass nontemporal copy : 2722.4 MB/s (1.2%) SSE2 fill : 7329.0 MB/s (0.5%) SSE2 nontemporal fill : 16293.2 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 : 2.5 ns / 3.7 ns 131072 : 3.8 ns / 4.7 ns 262144 : 5.1 ns / 6.0 ns 524288 : 6.4 ns / 7.2 ns 1048576 : 7.1 ns / 7.5 ns 2097152 : 8.7 ns / 9.8 ns 4194304 : 14.9 ns / 18.8 ns 8388608 : 34.2 ns / 50.9 ns 16777216 : 89.3 ns / 129.8 ns 33554432 : 125.3 ns / 165.9 ns 67108864 : 145.4 ns / 181.9 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 : 2.5 ns / 3.7 ns 131072 : 3.8 ns / 4.7 ns 262144 : 4.4 ns / 4.9 ns 524288 : 4.7 ns / 5.0 ns 1048576 : 4.9 ns / 5.0 ns 2097152 : 5.2 ns / 5.3 ns 4194304 : 11.3 ns / 14.4 ns 8388608 : 28.9 ns / 43.7 ns 16777216 : 80.1 ns / 114.8 ns 33554432 : 109.6 ns / 140.2 ns 67108864 : 125.3 ns / 148.9 n ```sbc-benchresultshttps://0x0.st/XO8j.bin
Phoronix Test Suite
Results from pi-general-benchmark.sh: