3 ms·
There's precious little detail here. For example, one test the benchmark runs is x264 – H.264 video encoding where apparently ExaGear is an amazing 9.21 times
by kogepathic 9y ago
There's precious little detail here.
For example, one test the benchmark runs is x264 – H.264 video encoding where apparently ExaGear is an amazing 9.21 times faster than QEMU.
No frame rate mentioned for either QEMU or ExaGear, and they don't include a comparison to x264 encoding running natively (probably because it would make ExaGear look quite bad).
They also don't mention at all what QEMU options they're using. Maybe they're emulating an x86 in QEMU which lacks SIMD instructions? It's impossible to know without them publishing more information about their test methodology.
- deaddodo 9y agoThey pretty clearly layout that PARSEC is their benchmarking suite. You can see that here: http://parsec.cs.princeton.edu/ http://parsec.cs.princeton.edu/ Feel free to bug Princeton if you need specifics. I mean, I don't really care about this program, but it's not that difficult to beat qemu. Their whole thing is that they focus on accuracy and cross-platform compatibility. Both those things make optimizations difficult-at-best. If you're only coding a VM for a certain translation (x86->ARM, for instance), you can optimize like crazy.