From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from co9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co9ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com [207.46.163.28]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936D2E015A9 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail100-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.228) by CO9EHSOBE017.bigfish.com (10.236.130.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:53:50 +0000 Received: from mail100-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail100-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E111B00211; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:53:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:70.37.183.190; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:mail.freescale.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: 11 X-BigFish: VS11(zzbb2dI98dI9371Ic89bh1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h8275bh1de097hz2dh2a8h839h947hd25he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h1765h18e1h190ch1946h19b4h19c3h1ad9h1b0ah1b2fh1fb3h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1f5fh1fe8h1ff5h209eh133w1155h) Received: from mail100-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail100-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 1377777176465461_11297; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:52:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CO9EHSMHS009.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.242]) by mail100-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A9894004C; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:52:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.freescale.net (70.37.183.190) by CO9EHSMHS009.bigfish.com (10.236.130.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:52:56 +0000 Received: from az84smr01.freescale.net (10.64.34.197) by 039-SN1MMR1-003.039d.mgd.msft.net (10.84.1.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.2; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:52:55 +0000 Received: from [10.29.244.63] ([10.29.244.63]) by az84smr01.freescale.net (8.14.3/8.14.0) with ESMTP id r7TBqrvQ008705; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:52:54 -0700 Message-ID: <521F353A.6070902@freescale.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:49:14 -0300 From: Daiane Angolini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Eric_B=E9nard?= References: <521E28B7.7040105@freescale.com> <521E3159.7010908@freescale.com> <20130828200037.48571a17@e6520eb> <521E4189.9060005@freescale.com> <20130828222721.07cd5727@e6520eb> In-Reply-To: <20130828222721.07cd5727@e6520eb> X-OriginatorOrg: freescale.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% Cc: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: GPU tests on master next - core-image-x11 - sfp X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:53:52 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08/28/2013 05:27 PM, Eric B=E9nard wrote: > Le Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:29:29 -0300, > Daiane Angolini a =E9crit : > >> On 08/28/2013 03:00 PM, Eric B=E9nard wrote: >>> Le Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:20:25 -0300, >>> Daiane Angolini a =E9crit : >>> >>>> 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=3D:0 glxgears >>>>> 108 frames in 5.0 seconds =3D 21.508 FPS >>>>> >>>>> $ DISPLAY=3D:0 es2gears_x11 >>>>> 1494 frames in 5.0 seconds =3D 298.740 FPS >>>>> >>>>> $ DISPLAY=3D:0 glmark2-es2 >>>>> glmark2 Score: 212 >>>>> >>>>> $ DISPLAY=3D:0 glmark2-es2 --fullscreen >>>>> glmark2 Score: 229 >>>> >>>> The results for HARD fp: >>>> >>>> >>>> $ DISPLAY=3D:0 glxgears >>>> 107 frames in 5.0 seconds =3D 21.395 FPS >>>> >>>> $ DISPLAY=3D:0 es2gears_x11 >>>> 1451 frames in 5.0 seconds =3D 290.200 FPS >>>> >>>> $ DISPLAY=3D:0 glmark2-es2 >>>> glmark2 Score: 213 >>>> >>>> $ DISPLAY=3D: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. Great, the most important question I need to answer is "is that working". > > 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. With some time/test we can decide "which is the best" Nice ;-) > > Eric > --=20 Daiane