On 08/28/2013 03:00 PM, Eric Bénard wrote:
Le Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:20:25 -0300,
Daiane Angolini <[email protected]> a écrit :
On 08/28/2013 01:43 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
I've been running some tests on master-next.
I used the following commands. Do you know any other I could run?
The past email, was for SOFT fp
RESULTS:
$ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
108 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.508 FPS
$ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
1494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 298.740 FPS
$ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
glmark2 Score: 212
$ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
glmark2 Score: 229
The results for HARD fp:
$ DISPLAY=:0 glxgears
107 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21.395 FPS
$ DISPLAY=:0 es2gears_x11
1451 frames in 5.0 seconds = 290.200 FPS
$ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2
glmark2 Score: 213
$ DISPLAY=:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen
glmark2 Score: 228
so hardfp brings lower results than softfp ... interesting ;-)
I took only measure. One time. I haven't calculated the standard
deviation or error from measures.
I would say the results is just "equal".
And, I'm not sure how much hfp and sfp impacts the result of a task
executed mainly by hardware (gpu).
Do you think, by the results, that there is still any bug?
Eric
--
Daiane
_______________________________________________
meta-freescale mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
