Rk3399 geekbench 5 pro#
Rk3399 geekbench 5 software#

Once the machine starts to pageout/swap especially on storage with low random I/O performance it’s game over

Rk3399 geekbench 5 software#

sufficient amount of RAM since today’s software is a sh*tload of complexity (crappy software stacking layers of complexity one over another) needing tons of RAM.as much graphics acceleration possible (both GPU and VPU).high random I/O performance of the boot drive (the drive the OS is installed on).Then if the use case is ‘use this thing as desktop computer’ the important stuff is With a ‘ use case first’ approach it’s easy: I need macOS for my main computer so regardless of any performance considerations it’s the MacBook. Which f*cking use case do these Geekbench combined scores represent? Which use case does Geekbench represent other than… none? I asked this many times various people and never got an answer. Obviously Geekbench is targeting a much wider audience than SBC, so can you tell how a Rock 5 using a cheap PCIe x4 SSD fair against a M2 Macbook Air? If ‘amateurs’ like me are able to do this in sbc-bench those Geekbench guys should be able to do this as well. get the CPU’s cluster details and report them correctly and also test cores of all clusters individually.It’s easy to spot this and to refuse to upload crappy numbers if this happened

check throttling or thermals in general.

They (try to) measure single-threaded performance on a big core but report the little core’s sysfs clockspeed. ARM’s big.LITTLE is there for a decade now but Geekbench doesn’t care.

Rk3399 geekbench 5 pro#

They report 2700MHz or 4000MHz for the same Core i7 in my old MacBook Pro depending on whether the benchmark runs on Windows or Linux. Geekbench clockspeed reporting is pure BS. An ‘amateur’ like me uses mhz utility for this in sbc-bench.

measure CPU clockspeeds instead of trusting into some (often faked) sysfs entry.

They don’t give a sh*t about a sane benchmarking environment and deliberately upload garbage numbers to their website even if those are just numbers without meaning. It’s due diligence when generating these numbers. Geekbench doesn’t care about any of these, just generates and uploads random numbers.Īnd of course Geekbench does not care… how would they support a SoC is beyond me

background activitly that ruins benchmark numbers.

different environmental conditions like temperature.relevant kernel config like CONFIG_HZ or thermal trip points resulting in moderate up to absurd throttling like above.boot BLOBs that do DRAM initialization (I have a couple of older sbc-bench results in my collection with really bad memory performance).It’s not just silicon variation (the RK3568 on the 2nd test clocks severly lower than 2000 MHz) but it’s broken thermal trip points AKA bad settings.Īs for results variations with RK3568 we have How is that possible? Fortunately sbc-bench results also contain the answers. : 7-zip multi-threaded score of just 2690 Sbc-bench tries to generate insights and not just numbers. Then maybe you should better look at my sbc-bench than this Geekbench garbage… And perhaps I should just focus on INT performance too…