Le Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:29:29 -0300, Daiane Angolini <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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? > on the GPU point of view no. I find interesting that the hardfp gives lower results than the softfp : maybe that would be interesting to have true real life benchmarks on this side (not GPU centric) before defaulting hardfp in meta-fsl-arm for i.MX6 platforms. Eric _______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
