Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #27652

Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench

Show all headers | View raw

Am 20.02.2018 um 16:14 schrieb Jack:
> Il giorno martedì 20 febbraio 2018 15:27:28 UTC+1, Philipp Klaus Krause ha scritto:
>> Am 20.02.2018 um 14:38 schrieb Philipp Klaus Krause:
>>>
>>> 'Don't have one yet, but intend to do a Cortex-M3 and maybe a Z80 test
>>> later this week. At some point, I should also put a list of results on
>>> http://stdcbench.org/
>>>
>>> Philipp
>>>
>>
>> Here is a Cortex-M4 (the STM32F302R8 at 64 Mhz - it could do 72 Mhz, but
>> not with the internal oscillator, and my board doesn't have a crystal),
>> using GCC -O2 -mcpu=cortex-m4 -mthumb with newlib-nano:
>>
>> stdcbench 0.3
>> stdcbench c90base score: 1693
>> stdcbench c90lib score: 864
>> stdcbench final score: 2557
>>
>> Looks only 15% faster per clock cycle than the Cortex-M0.
>>
>> Philipp
> 
> Following the "Definitive Guide to ARM CortexM0-M0+" the performance of avrious Cortex M are:
> 
> Features Cortex-M0 Cortex-M0+ Cortex-M3 Cortex-M4 Cortex-M7
> Dhrystone 2.1 (per MHz) 0.9 0.95 1.25 1.25 2.14
> CoreMark 1.0 (per MHz) 2.33 2.46 3.34 3.40 5.01
> 
> So maybe there is something that the M4 doesn't like too much or gcc doesn't optimize very well for the M4 (with the option used).
> 
> Bye Jack
> 

I probably won't find time for testing until later this week, but for
now I suspect it is the flash: The flash in the STM32F051 (Cortex-M0) at
48 Mhz needs 1 wait state, while the flash in the STM32F302 (Cortex-M4)
at 64 Mhz needs 2 wait states. Both devices have a prefetch buffer that
is supposed to somewhat reduce the effect of the wait states on program
execution.

Philipp

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-07 16:49 +0100
  Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2018-02-08 22:36 -0800
    Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-09 20:48 +0100
      Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2018-02-09 13:28 -0800
        Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Stef <stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> - 2018-02-10 01:26 +0100
        Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-10 18:47 +0100
          Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2018-02-10 21:32 +0200
            Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-10 20:40 +0100
        Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-20 14:00 +0100
          Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2018-02-20 05:13 -0800
            Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-20 14:38 +0100
              Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-20 15:27 +0100
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2018-02-20 07:14 -0800
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-20 17:30 +0100
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-03-05 19:59 +0100
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-20 20:58 +0100
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2018-02-20 23:37 -0800
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-21 09:29 +0100
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-21 11:01 +0100
          Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2018-02-20 21:37 +0200
            Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2018-02-20 23:42 -0800
      Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2018-02-10 22:48 -0800
        Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2018-02-11 13:22 -0800
      stdcbench STM8 compiler comparison Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-11 19:20 +0100
        Re: stdcbench STM8 compiler comparison Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2018-02-11 23:29 +0000
          Re: stdcbench STM8 compiler comparison Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-12 07:13 +0100

csiph-web