PINE64

Full Version: Some performance comparisions
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
So, since I've got both the pine64, rock64 and rockpro64 on the bench atm, and am playing with some timelapse video conversion... I thought I'd run a job on all three and see what the results were.

Unsurprisingly, the rockpro64 won the race. I was surprised to see the pine64 wasn't that far behind the rock64, but then again, I'm not doing anything that I think would really take advantage of the hardware encoding...

Now this wasn't that hard a job, stitching together some 1800 stills into a around 90 second timelapse, but it still illustrates the performance difference between the boards at this stage, with what is likely to be sub-optimal encoding settings.

[attachment=1152]

And because evilbunny made me pull out my pineH64 and run linux on it... it gets a mention also, but it is a dishonorable mention as the Linux image I have for it is barely enough to boot it, and it is seriously un-optimised ...

Code:
real    2m48.377s
user    10m49.964s
sys     0m1.980s
pfeerick@pineh64:~$
(06-09-2018, 03:31 AM)pfeerick Wrote: [ -> ]So, since I've got both the pine64, rock64 and rockpro64 on the bench atm, and am playing with some timelapse video conversion... I thought I'd run a job on all three and see what the results were.

Unsurprisingly, the rockpro64 won the race. I was surprised to see the pine64 wasn't that far behind the rock64, but then again, I'm not doing anything that I think would really take advantage of the hardware encoding...

Now this wasn't that hard a job, stitching together some 1800 stills into a around 90 second timelapse, but it still illustrates the performance difference between the boards at this stage, with what is likely to be sub-optimal encoding settings.



And because evilbunny made me pull out my pineH64 and run linux on it... it gets a mention also, but it is a dishonorable mention as the Linux image I have for it is barely enough to boot it, and it is seriously un-optimised ...

Code:
real    2m48.377s
user    10m49.964s
sys     0m1.980s
pfeerick@pineh64:~$

It looks like a significant uplift in performance, can't wait to get my hands on one.....
It would great if we can see some test results of Samba performance on conventional disk as well as on SSD.
(06-15-2018, 08:27 PM)rontant Wrote: [ -> ]It would great if we can see some test results of Samba performance on conventional disk as well as on SSD.

I'll do that once I have a SSD to connect to it... it's still in the mail. Sad