![]() ![]() Kishonti for example didn't do that very well - they often relied on all the HW vendors telling them everything they did wrong in the beta versions until it kinda sorta worked in the final release. There's literally a billion things that could go wrong with any microbenchmark, which is why if a result seems anomalous, you really want to iterate and modify the test to understand what's going on - or at least have a lot of knowledge of the trade-offs so you intuitively create a test which is unlikely to hit that kind of problem in the first place, and not a lot of people have that knowledge unfortunately. which tells me that it's probably *not* 2x slower than A10 for FP32 FMAs, because I'd hopefully have remembered thatĪ few random thoughts on what might be going wrong: maybe they're using a very low resolution with lots of blended layers, and it's not enough tiles/pixels to fill all the shader cores? or maybe it's just one *massive* shader and the A11 either has lots of instruction cache misses, or it's a tiny loop with many iterations and the A11 compiler doesn't unroll it properly while the A10 did? Read reviews, compare customer ratings, see screenshots and learn more about CPU-x. I honestly don't remember anything about any analysis of the A11, I've completely erased that from my brain for lack of interest. Their two star rating knocked me out of my spot as a top dasher and I. It is a sophisticated app that contains over 300,000 lines of assembly code and over 60,000 C code to provide nice user experience, accurate CPU frequency and the best CPU performance, without any memory leak or crash. Get CPU-x Dasher z Battery life for iOS latest version. branch and divergence efficiency matters quite a bit more than in typical workloads). CPU Hacker is the CPU DasherX version for Android. Download CPU-x Dasher z Battery life App 1.6.3 for iPad & iPhone free online at AppPure. ![]() The GFXBench 3.1 ALU2 test is slightly better, but still just one biased datapoint amongst others (e.g. The best utility to help you know more about your device and specially provide details information of phone CPU. GPUs that are slower at sin/cos (because they're bloody useless in most real workloads) are significantly slower at it. The original GFXBench 3.0 ALU1 test, for example, is basically testing nothing but trigonometric performance. Just the fact someone is doing that indicates to me they probably don't understand how to test ALU performance in a useful way, and therefore I'd be very reluctant to believe any results. It's frankly complete nonsense to evaluate shader core performance with a *single* microbenchmark as if that was some kind of end-all-be-all of ALU performance. Any test suite which has a single "ALU" test doesn't seem very reliable to me. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |