4 ms·

I've used a machine with this chip (remotely). It's not terrible; Daniel Lemire blogs about some early performance impressions here https://lemire.me/blog/2019/

I've used a machine with this chip (remotely). It's not terrible; Daniel Lemire blogs about some early performance impressions here https://lemire.me/blog/2019/03/26/hasty-comparison-skylark-arm-versus-skylake-intel/ https://lemire.me/blog/2019/03/26/hasty-comparison-skylark-a... and I've ported simdjson to it (https://github.com/lemire/simdjson https://github.com/lemire/simdjson). I'm definitely not at the stage where I can say anything definitive about performance. For a SIMD-intensive task, a preliminary run on a 3.3Ghz eMag core gets about 400 megabytes/second of JSON parsing relative to 2.2 gigabytes/second on a 4.0Ghz Skylake. This may come down to having a maximum of 2 x 128-bit NEON operations per cycle vs 3 x 256 AVX2 operations per cycle, as well as some clock speed differences. Will eventually post about this at branchfree.org when I don my Nomex long johns (required whenever doing any benchmark that might imply to anyone that any processor runs faster or slower than any other processor).

linux4kix 8y ago
Just tested the Daniel's tests against our 16 Core LX2160 that is still only clocked at 1.9Ghz (will be 2.2Ghz final production). These are our numbers binarytrees: 37s mandelbrot: 13.6s fasta: 0.9s I will give your benchmark a run once I have some time.
- linux4kix 8y ago
  Okay I couldn't help myself, waiting for a build to finish. ./parse jsonexamples/twitter.json Min: 0.00171284 bytes read: 631514 Gigabytes/second: 0.368695
  - glangdale 8y ago
    Whoa, thanks. 368, huh? That's pretty impressive given the 1.9Ghz clock speed... By coincidence, the 'twitter.json' file was the one I was using as my slender data point. Do note that at this stage the benchmark is so preliminary as to be largely meaningless - I haven't really done much more than eyeball the results. But as a preliminary data point, that seems to be a stronger showing clock-for-clock than the eMag one.
    - linux4kix 8y ago
      Sure I will keep an eye on your updates and keep testing. I would also like to point out that the LX2160 is also a TDP of 32Watts compared to the 125W TDP of the eMag.
    - linux4kix 8y ago
      let me know if you want this data in github. Just testing our overclocking bring cpu clock up to 2.4Ghz and DDR to 3200 Also building with gcc 8.2 not I needed to change -march=native to -march=armv8-a+crypto Min: 0.00111424 bytes read: 631514 Gigabytes/second: 0.566768

linux4kix 8y ago

Just tested the Daniel's tests against our 16 Core LX2160 that is still only clocked at 1.9Ghz (will be 2.2Ghz final production). These are our numbers binarytrees: 37s mandelbrot: 13.6s fasta: 0.9s I will give your benchmark a run once I have some time.

linux4kix 8y ago
Okay I couldn't help myself, waiting for a build to finish. ./parse jsonexamples/twitter.json Min: 0.00171284 bytes read: 631514 Gigabytes/second: 0.368695
- glangdale 8y ago
  Whoa, thanks. 368, huh? That's pretty impressive given the 1.9Ghz clock speed... By coincidence, the 'twitter.json' file was the one I was using as my slender data point. Do note that at this stage the benchmark is so preliminary as to be largely meaningless - I haven't really done much more than eyeball the results. But as a preliminary data point, that seems to be a stronger showing clock-for-clock than the eMag one.
  - linux4kix 8y ago
    Sure I will keep an eye on your updates and keep testing. I would also like to point out that the LX2160 is also a TDP of 32Watts compared to the 125W TDP of the eMag.
  - linux4kix 8y ago
    let me know if you want this data in github. Just testing our overclocking bring cpu clock up to 2.4Ghz and DDR to 3200 Also building with gcc 8.2 not I needed to change -march=native to -march=armv8-a+crypto Min: 0.00111424 bytes read: 631514 Gigabytes/second: 0.566768