Archive

Posts Tagged ‘benchmark’

A Quick Look at Antutu 5 Alpha 2 Benchmark

July 9th, 2014 No comments

Antutu Labs has released an alpha version of Antutu 5 on XDA Developers, and although I can’t share it directly,you can request a copy by sending an email to Antutu. I did that, received the apk (antutu-benchmark-v5-alpha2.apk). and decided to try it on Tronsmart Vega S89 Elite TV Box and ThL W200 smartphone

They’ve added three new tests, replacing the 2D and 3D benchmarks in the process:

  • Added CPU single thread benchmark (integer and float)
  • Real Game engines used for graphics benchmarks: Cocos2D, and Havok Vision
  • HTML5 Test
Antutu 5 (Click for Original Size)

Antutu 5 (Click for Original Size)

The user interface is very similar to Antutu 4, but you’ll notice the new HTML5 Web Test before starting a full test.

Antutu_5_2D_Graphics

Antutu 5 2D Graphics Benchmark (Click for Original Size)

You’ll start seeing more changes with the 2D graphics tests which are very similar, but you can still feel it’s different, and the test resolution is now clearly shown during the benchmark.

Antutu 5 3D Graphics Benchmark (Click for Original Size)

Antutu 5 3D Graphics Benchmark (Click for Original Size)

But it’s the 3D graphics benchmarks that’s completely different, and uses Havok Vision gaming engine. Both ThL W200 (Mediatek MT6589T with PowerVR SGX544 GPU @ 720p) and Tronsmart Vega S89 Elite (Amlogic S802 with Mali-450MP6 GPU @ 1080p) really struggled with the benchmark, rendering the demo often below 10 fps. More screenshots here and there.

Antutu 5 Benchmark Results (Click for Original Size)

Antutu 5 Benchmark Results (Click for Original Size)

The result window is about the same apart from the single thread results, and there’s no comparison window, possibly because it’s an alpha version. There’s also an history view that shows the results in a nice condensed form that’s not in Antutu 4, or that I never noticed. ThL W200 could complete the test, and surprisingly the score (16431) is about the as a Antutu 4.x (16412). On Vega S89 Elite, Antutu stopped right after the 3D graphics test, and I could not get a score. Most people seems to have a higher score with Antutu 5.x (e.g. Galaxy Note 3 N9005 gets 45,000+), so scores won’t be comparable directly.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter

Categories: Android Tags: Android, antutu, benchmark, thl, tronsmart

VidOn.me AV200 Android TV Box Review

July 7th, 2014 1 comment

After providing some pictures of VidOn.me AV200 media player, and its PCBA, it’s now time for a review. I’ll start by giving my first impressions, and checking out the system settigns and user’s interface, go through my library of video test files, and cover most hardware features. As usual, I’ll also test Wi-Fi performance, but I’ve now added more tests including Ethernet performance, and USB hard drive support and performance with NTFS, FAT32, EXT-4, and BTRFS partitions.

First Boot, Settings and First Impressions

The device comes with an IR remote control with lots of buttons, including shortcuts, D-Pad control, digit keys and trick modes (play/pause, fast forward and rewind, next and previous), but the two required AAA batteries were not included, and I did not have spare batteries, so I did not use the remote control, which looks pretty OK for XBMC, and just control the device with my Mele F10 air mouse. I’ve connected an Ethernet cable, the provided HDMI cables, the Mele F10 USB RF dongle, and the power adapter to boot the device. It took around 40 seconds to reach the user interface, which looks pretty similar to the one provided with many recent firmware on devices such as Tronsmart Vega S89 or SZTomato M8.

VidOn.me_Android_Home_Screen

At the top left of the screen, clicking on the VidOn.me logo redirect you to their website. The small top right icons are for Download (with download speed shown in real-time), App (Kill, Move to SD card or Remove), Network connection, and date and time. The large icons in the center of the screen are for VidOn XBMC, and “folders” for TV shows, movies, games and music applications. The lower row is composed of icons redirecting to the list of apps, a file manager, and custom system settings. The Add icon allows you to add your preferred app to the row for faster access. The user interface resolution is stuck to 1280×720.

There are quite a few common pre-installed apps including Chrome, the Play Store, Gmail, YouTube, Pandora, Netflix, Pinterest, Skype, Fadcebook and Twitter. I had no problem installing other apps with Google Play.

The “Setting” menu gives you access to the settings shown in the same Metro-style with four sub menus: Network Settings, Display Settings, “Volume” Settings and Others Settings. Network settings let you choose between Wi-Fi and Ethernet almost no problem here, except the vey first boot, Ethernet is set by defautl as fixed IP without any IP, so you have to go to the Android Settings menu, via the Other Settings menu to configure Ethernet, not that user’s friendly… The Display Settings provide menus top configure HDMI output to 720p 50/60, 1080i 50/60 and 1080p 24/50/60, as well as slider for overscan adjustment. The  “Volume” settings are actually audio settings, that let you select the Audio output (HDMI or 3.5mm audio jack), whether it’s connected directly to a TV or via a decoder amplifier (pass-through), and adjust the volume. “Other Settings” are not settings at all, but report the model (Android Blu-ray Box), thefirmware version (V3.1.3), the MAC Address, and the n-board storage (1GB app partition, 4.14 GB internal SD card). There are also two buttons” System Upgrade” which allows for OTA or local upgrades, and “Advanced Settings” that are the Android settings you can find on any Android device.  There’s not much to see over there, except the kernel version is 3.3.30, and developer options are enabled. Ethernet configuration must also be done in the Android settings…

The device has been released last year, so I was expecting a super stable firmware, and it’s working pretty well most of the time, but I did get two random reboots, and once XBMC would not start at all, and I had to reboot to recover. There’s a power button on the device and one the remote, I did not test the latter, but pressing the former really shuts down the device properly, which is a plus.

Video Playback

The box comes pre-loaded with a special version of XBMC called VidOn XBMC Pro which I used for testing video playback. The first time you start the app, you have to register with VidOn.me and  login, or you can’t use XBMC, and I found that quite annoying. But I was pleased to be asked if I wanted to receive an automatic upgrade for XBMC, which I downloaded only to be told there was not enough space! That’s a new device where I only install 2 or 3 small apps (Root checker, and screenshot apps). That’s the result of silly partitioning like I had on my Android phone with 1GB for apps, and 4+ GB for data which is never used. So I used the App tool the provided to move some apps to the internal “SD Card”. When I went to XBMC again, they had to re-downloable the fully update yet again, which takes about 5 minutes, before it got successful…

But after a poor user experience due to forced registration and  problems with installating an update, I was pleasantly surprised as the user interface is very smooth and rendered @ 60 fps (1280×720), and I did not experience any slowdown.

Let’s start with video playback. Unless otherwise noted, the videos are played from a SAMBA share on Ubuntu 14.04 using the Ethernet connection of the device. I had no problem for SAMBA configuration in XBMC nor ES File Explorer.

Videos from samplemedia.linaro.org:

  • H.264 codec / MP4 container (Big Buck Bunny), 480p/720p/1080p – OK
  • MPEG2 codec / MPG container, 480p/720p – OK; 1080p – The video can play but there seemed to be some sort of screen/color blinking every few seconds.
  • MPEG4 codec, AVI container 480p/720p/1080p – OK
  • VC1 codec (WMV), 480p/720p/1080p – OK
  • Real Media (RMVB) – The video can played but lots of frames are skipped.
  • WebM / VP8 – 480p/720p/1080p is – OK.

I’ve also tested some high bitrate videos:

  • ED_HD.avi (1080p MPEG-4 – 10Mbps) – Lots of frames skipped and massive audio/video sync issue
  • big_buck_bunny_1080p_surround.avi (1080p H.264 – 12 Mbps) – OK.
  • h264_1080p_hp_4.1_40mbps_birds.mkv (40 Mbps) – OK
  • hddvd_demo_17.5Mbps_1080p_VC1.mkv (17.5Mbps) – OK
  • Jellyfish-120-Mbps.mkv (120Mpbs) – Some buffering occurs, and the video is not really smooth at anytime. Tested using a USB hard drive (EXT-4)

I’ve also tested common audio codecs below using downsampling:

  • AC3 – OK
  • Dolby Digital 5.1 / Dolby Digital 7.1 – OK
  • TrueHD 5.1 & 7.1 – OK
  • DTS-MA and DTS-HR – OK

Even there’s no Blu-ray drive to be seen, AV200 is sold as a “Blu-ray” player, as it is supposed to play Blu-ray. I could play Sintel-Bluray.iso in XBMC without issue, and navigate between chapters. 3D Blu-ray are also supported, but I’m not sure how to test it yet.

I’ve also tested several 4K Videos since AllWinner A31 SoC does support 4K decoding, but unfortunately hardware decode does not seem to have been implemented in XBMC:

  • HD.Club-4K-Chimei-inn-60mbps.mp4 (60 Mbps) – Audio cuts after 2 seconds, and video is very slow.
  • Sintel.2010.4K.mkv – Very slow playback, frames skipped.

I also tested several AVI, MKV, FLV and MP4 videos, and they could all play. Finally, I also played some “motion bar” videos to check 24Hz, 23.976Hz, 50Hz, 59.940Hz, and 60Hz support, but there seemed to be jitter a bit all the time, so results are not conclusive.

Links to various video samples used in this review and be found in “Where to get video, audio and images samples” post and comments.

Network Performance (Wi-Fi and Ethernet)

I used to test only Wi-Fi, since I believed Ethernet performance would be pretty similar in all devices, but I’ve changed my mind, and will now provide both Wi-Fi and Ethernet performance results. The test consist in transferring a 278 MB file between a SAMBA share and the internal flash, and vice versa, repeating the test three times. Transferring the file between flash and SAMBA took 1:49 (2.55Mb/s), and in the reverse direction it’s a bit slower as it took 2:18 (2.01 MB.s). There was very little variability between the test which is nice, and on average the transfer was performed at 2.25MB/s, a pretty decent result.

AV200_Mele_M9_WiFiCS868, Mele X1000, and AV200 (aka Mele M9) all happen to have a metallic casing, and I wonder if it could be related in any way to Wi-Fi performance, albeit T428 also comes with a metallic enclosure but does not fare that well.

The Ethernet test does not really test pure Ethernet speed, but a common use case transferring the same 278 MB between SAMBA and the internal flash. From SAMBA to the flash was done @ 3.43 MB/s (1m21s), and from the internal flash to SAMBA @ 4.27MB/s (1m05s).

Miscellaneous Tests

Bluetooth

There’s no Bluetooth support in both the hardware and firmware, so even external USB Bluetooth dongles won’t be supported.

External Storage

I could use an SD card formatted to FAT32 successfully.
I’ve also purchased a USB 3.0 hard drive that I partitioned in 4 with NTFS, EXT-4, FAT32, and BTRFS. Here are the performance results achieved by copying files between the internal flash and the partitions.

File System Read Write
NTFS 6.17MB/s 5.05MB/s
EXT-4 Not supported
FAT32 6.31MB/s 13.9MB/s
BTRFS Not supported

I used a stopwatch, and did the transfer with ES File Explorer waiting for the transfer window to disappear. I mention this detail because the transfer is reported as finished much earlier, but ES File Explorer appears to flush the file to disk for a few more seconds (around 20) before the transfer window is closed.I used a stopwatch, and did the transfer with ES File Explorer waiting for the transfer window to disappear. I mention this detail because the transfer is reported as finished much earlier, but ES File Explorer appears to flush the file to disk for a few more seconds before the transfer window is closed.

The read transfer speed is unfortunately not representative of the true speed as it must be limited by the internal flash write speed. I also tried to copy from FAT32 to SAMBA but it’s even slower. I’ll need to find another way…

Gaming

I’ve tested two games: Angry Birds Star Wars, and Beach Buggy Blitz. Both are running fine, including Buggy Blitz set to maximum graphics settings.

VidOn.me AV200 Benchmark

I’ve just run one quick benchmark (Antutu) since AllWinner A31 is not exactly new, to check there was not performance issues.

Antutu Benchmark Results (Click to Enlarge)

Antutu Benchmark Results (Click to Enlarge)

A 11399 score for a quad core Cortex A7 @ 1 Ghz seems about right, considering a Rockchip RK3188T (4x Cortex A9 @ 1.4Ghz) now gets around 14,000, so the score is probably helped by the PowerVR GPU.

Conclusion

VidOn.me AV200 is performing quite well, especially when it comes with video playback, but I feel a little worried that I had 2 automatic reboot during my day of testing, especially since the device went through several firmware iterations.

Let’s summarize the PROS and CONS

  • PROS
    • Smooth and fast firmware.
    • Custom version of XBMC with Blu-Ray ISO and 3D support, and HDMI pass-through
    • Very Good video formats/codecs support
    • High quality metallic enclosure
    • Good Wi-Fi performance
    • OTA firmware and XBMC upgrades
  • CONS
    • Stability problems.
    • Their XBMC version requires registration and login to VidOn.me
    • 4K hardware video decoding not supported, at least in XBMC
    • Poor partitioning of the flash, leading to problems to install apps or updates.
    • Device is sold out, and can only be obtained as second hand, or by buying Mele M9.
    • Further firmware updates very unlikely due to above reasons.

VidOn.me AV200 has one of the best, if not the best, audio/video format/codec support I’ve ever seen from the device I tested, baring lack of support for 4K, H.265, and some visual effects in one of my MPEG2 files, but I tend to test recently released device, and the VidOn.me team had more time to iron out issues with this media player, which makes the two reboots I had all the more disappointing, but maybe I was just unlucky, and it did not happen during video playback (One in ES File Explorer, and one in the System Settings).

As mentioned before, you can’t buy VidOn.me AV200 anymore, but it’s the same hardware as Mele M9, and according to reports you can install VidOn.me firmware on Mele M9 or A1000G.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter

Onda V989 Tablet Powered by AllWinner A80T Achieves Close to 50,000 Points in Antutu

June 17th, 2014 9 comments

Teclast T97 was one the first tablet based on AllWinner A80, an octa-core CortexA15/A7 big.little processor with PowerVR G6230 GPU. It was announced way too early last December… There’s now another tablet much closer to an actual retail availability called Onda V989 featuring AllWinner A80T with a 9.7″ display and 2 or 4 GB RAM that come close to the top of the Antutu scoreboard with 48102 points.

AllWinner_A80TUnfortunately that’s all we know about this tablet at this stage. I’m not sure what A80T means, AllWinner A80 Tablet version?, or AllWinner A80 Turbo, with higher clock frequencies? There has also been some sort of silly season with benchmark related to AllWinner A80 with scores ranging from 23674 to 48102 points in Antutu as shown below for Onda V989. The low score was achieved when A80′s Cortex A15 cores were allegedly clocked at 1.2GHz , but it should be closer to 2GHz when it ships, unless there are serious overheating issues… We’ll find out the truth once products are available, hopefully in July, but the target release for AllWinner A80 seems to be pushed to the future every month…

Antutu Score for Onda V989 (AllWinner A80T)

Antutu Score for Onda V989 (AllWinner A80T)

Via pbhz

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter

1TB Seagate Expansion Portable Drive USB 3.0 Benchmark

June 10th, 2014 No comments

Many upcoming ARM based board and device will support better connectivity with Gigagit Ethernet and USB 3.0 port, and Wi-Fi 802.11ac support. Since my media files are stored in a USB 2.0 hard drive, and my network is still using fast Ethernet and 802.11n, I had to go shopping. I’ve already purchased a 5-port Gigabit switch (D-Link DGS-1005A), and an an external USB 3.0 hard drive (Seagate Expansion 1TB Portable External Hard Drive), but I’m still looking for a decent and reasonably priced 802.11ac router (Suggestions welcomed).

I’ll plan to use the USB 3.0 drive both to test file transfers over Gigabit, USB 3.0 performance, and file systems compatibility. So I’ve partitioned the drive using four common filesystems: NTFS, EXT-4, FAT32, and BTRFS, and both to make sure the drive is suitable for Gigabit transfer, and as a reference point, I’ve also performed some benchmarks.

USB 3.0 Drive Partitions

USB 3.0 Drive Partitions

There are several tools to test a drive performance, but I ended up using Bonnie++ in Ubuntu 14.04, because I’m used to it, and it appears to be available for Android (Version 1.96) which could be useful for future tests.

I used to default settings, running bonnie++ -d mount_point. The program uses double the amount of RAM (16GB) to write on the hard drive, which means I could only test NTFS, EXT-4 and BTRFS, as FAT32 was probably hit by its 4GB file limit has bonnie++ failed to run. Let’s have a look at the result (tabled generated with bon_csv2html).

Version 1.97 Sequential Output Sequential Input Random
Seeks
Size Per Char Block Rewrite Per Char Block
K/sec % CPU K/sec % CPU K/sec % CPU K/sec % CPU K/sec % CPU /sec % CPU
NTFS 32056M 10 31 46087 29 25147 18 1031 95 109659 16 83.4 5
Latency 877ms 582ms 714ms 34228us 141ms 2331ms
EXT-4 32056M 333 97 93965 29 44169 15 1300 98 115730 18 123.4 5
Latency 61461us 293ms 5386ms 26539us 149ms 1451ms
BTRFS 32056M 262 94 67092 14 31259 12 1303 97 79122 12 123.6 4
Latency 33807us 8701ms 16653ms 28666us 449ms 878ms

Click here for full results with sequential create and random create values.

You can read the readme for a full understand of the vocabulary used in Bonnie++, but sequential output tests the writing speed with putc (per char) and write (block) functions, and sequential input test the reading speed using getc and read functions. From this test, it seems ext-4 is the most suitable file system achieving about 113 MB/s read throughput, and 91.7MB/s write throughput, and both NTFS and BTRFS are much slower, especially when it comes to writing performance. 113 MB/s correspond to about 908 Mbps which is close to the theoretical speed achievable via Gigabit Ethernet.

I’ve also test the drive using “Disks” utility in Ubuntu, but this tool apparently measures raw speed, as I’ve noticed it may unmount the partitions before running the benchmark. Here are the results I got for NTFS, ext-4 and BTRFS partitions.

Disks Utility Benchmarks Results (Click to Enlarge)

Disks Utility Benchmarks Results (Click to Enlarge)

We’ll notice the performance seems to drop off as the readhead moves along the drive, which may be expected from a mechanical drive. Partition 1 averages 104.5 MB/s, partition 2 95.2 MB/s, and partition 4 drops to 62.9 MB.s on average, and close to just 50MB/s at the extremity of the drive. This probably explains why BTRFS has fared relatively poorly with Bonnie++.

For reference, I’ve also tested the performance of my Internal drive (Seagate 1TB - ST1000DM003-9YN162), and my external USB 2.0 drive (Seagate expansion, also ST1000DM003-9YN162). The USB 3.0 expansion drive was detected as a Seagate Momentus drive (ST1000LM024 HN-M101MBB) by Disks, so it’s interesting to see what kind of performance we can get from different interfaces SATA, USB 3.0, and USB 2.0.

Disks Benchmark of Seagate Drive Connected to SATA

Disks Benchmark of Seagate Drive Connected to SATA

As expected SATA II is still much fast than USB 3.0 with 142.8 MB/s read speed on average. The range is quite wide though between 200MB/s and 50MB/s. The big and short dropat at 50MB/s could be because it’s the drive used by the system, and another process access the disk at that time (TBC).

USB 2.0 Seagate Expansion (1TB) Disks Benchmark

USB 2.0 Seagate Expansion (1TB) Disks Benchmark

In theory USB 2.0 should provide 480 Mbps of bandwidth (60MB/s), but in this test throughput was pretty constant just below 30 MB/s, which shows the transfer speed is not limited by the mechanical parts of the drive, but my the USB 2.0 interface. This type of drive would be not suitable to transfer files over a Gigabit connection.

So finally, I’ll probably test files transfer over Gigabit and 802.11ac using the internal hard drive of my PC via HTTP, test video playback with the USB 2.0 drive via SAMBA/CIFS, unless I start to get videos with 200Mbps+ bitrate, and used to USB 3.0 hard drive directly with the TV Box or mini PC to test file transfer, and file systems support.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter

Intel Atom Z3580 MooreField SoC Shown to Outperform Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 in Graphics Benchmark

June 6th, 2014 1 comment

This is not exactly an independent benchmark, as Intel provided the results showing an Intel Atom Z3580 SoC with PowerVR G6430  @ 533 MHz outperform a Snapdragon 801 with Adreno 330 GPU @ 578 MHz (Galaxy S5) in FutureMark’s 3DMark benchmark by 20997 to 18144, or a little over 15%.  We’ve seen several CPU benchmarks before where Intel often has a edge over ARM based solution, but the previous generation with Intel Graphics was a bit weak on the graphics side, and this test seems to confirm, the new Intel smartphone SoC should provide very good graphics performance.

Intel_MooreField_Snapdragon_801

It appears Atom Z3580 might have also outperformed Snapdragon 805 with Adreno 420, as Anandtech reported an overall score of 19,698 in 3Dmarks with Qualcomm Snpadragon S805 mobile development platform (MDP), and noticed it was not the most GPU intensive test there is. So it’s still possible the higher score found on Intel’s smartphone reference design may be highly CPU bound, and more graphics benchmark are needed to really get a grasp on the upcoming Intel Moorefield 3D graphics performance.

Part of the setup at Intel’s booth at Computer 2014, was also an Intel Z3480 SoC (Merrifield) with a PowerVR G6400 GPU @ 533 MHz getting 16,407 points in the same benchmark.

Actual products based on Intel Merrifield and Moorefild SoC are expected to start shipping later this month. You can find more details and benchmarks results, released by Intel, for CPU and GPU on an earlier post about Intel Atom Z3460 & Z3480 (Merrifield) and Z3560 & Z3580 (Moorefield) Mobile SoCs.

Via Liliputing and Mobile Geeks

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter

Nvidia Tegra K1 CPU/FPU Performance is Comparable to Intel Celeron “Bay Trail-D” J1900 SoC

May 3rd, 2014 9 comments

Nvidia Jetson TK1 development board powered by Nvidia Tegra K1 quad core ARM Cortex A15 processor and a 192-core Kepler GPU has started shipping, and some people have already received theirs, including Michael Larabel (Phoronix) who ran some benchmarks on the board that comes pre-loaded with Ubuntu 14.04 LTS.

We already had some benchmarks comparing Tegra K1 to ARM peers on Android, but it’s the first time Linux benchmarks are available. The benchmarks seems to only involve CPU and FPU, and probably not the GPU at this point, but the results are still interesting, and Michael also pointed links comparing Nvidia Tegra K1 development board performance to some Intel Core i5 based PCs, as well as a platform based on an Intel Celeron J1900, a quad core processor part of Bay Trail Desktop family.  The later is most interesting as we compare systems with similar power requirements. Nvidia Tegra K1 is said to consume up to 11W, and Celeron J1900 is reported as having 10W TDP.

Nvidia_Jetson_TK1_vs_Celeron_J1900_PCThere’s no denying the results vary greatly depending on the task, and overall the performance of the Intel SoC still seem faster, but Tegra K1 and Celeron J1900 are clearly in the same class for most of the tests, and I’m not convinced the performance difference would be noticeable in daily use. There are however two tests that stand apart: VP8 libvpx Encoding, and OpenSSL, where Intel J800 is respectively nearly 8 times and twice as fast Tegra K1. This is most probably because the software has only be optimized for x86, or the libraries used make use of some hardware block(s) on the Intel processor, that’s not supported (at all or yet) by Nvidia Tegra K1.

Phoronix also monitored Tegra K1 during testing, and on average is was below 40 degrees Celsius, never going above 42. Jetson TK1 is however fitted with an heatsink and a fan which helps with cooling.

Eventually, it would be interesting to get some benchmarks about 3D graphics and GPU compute (OpenCL) capabilities of the Kepler GPU found in Tegra K1, as it’s touted as the key selling point of the platform.

Via Liliputing

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter

AMD Unveils Low Power Mobile “Mullins” APUs for Tablets and Hybrid Laptops

April 30th, 2014 1 comment

AMD has announced its 3rd-generation Mainstream and Low Power Mobile Accelerated Processing Units (APUs), codenamed codenamed “Beema” and “Mullins,” respectively, featuring four x86 Puma+ CPU, AMD Radeon graphics, and a platform security processor (PSP) with an ARM Cortex-A5 core for ARM TrustZone  security. Beema APUs have a TDP between 9W and 15W, whereas Mullins APUs all have less than 5W TDP (2.8W SDP). So I’ll only cover cover Mullins processors in this post, as they may offer an alternative to Intel Bay Trail-T processors.

AMD_Mullins_Block_DiagramThere are now 3 more APUs part of AMD’s tablets and 2-in-1 solutions: A10 Micro-6700T, A4 Micro-6400T, and E1 Micro-6200T. They are highlighted in green in  the table below, and compared to previous generations:

Model​​ Radeon Brand CPU Clock Speed (Max/Base) CPU Cores on Die TDP Total L2 Cache GPU Clock Speed (Max/Base) DDR SDRMA Max Memory Speed
​A10 Micro–​​6700T ​Radeon R6 ​2.2 GHz ​4 ​4.5W ​2MB ​500MHz ​DDR3L-1333
​A4 Micro–​6400T ​Radeon R3 ​1.6 GHz ​4 ​4.5W ​2MB ​350MHz ​DDR3L-1333
A6–1450 Radeon HD 8250 1.4GHz / 1.0GHz 4 8W 2MB 400MHz / 300MHz DDR3L-1066
A4-1350 Radeon HD 8210 1.0GHz 4 8W 2MB 300MHz DDR3L-1066
A4-1250 Radeon HD 8210 1.0GHz 2 8W 1MB 300MHz DDR3L-1333
A4-1200 Radeon HD 8180 1.0GHz 2 3.9W 1MB 225MHz DDR3L-1066
​E1 ​​Micro-6200T ​Radeon R2 ​1.4GHz ​2 ​3.95W ​1MB ​300MHz ​DDR3L-1066

Beside the new Puma+ CPU cores, and AMD R Series GPU, performance and power consumption have been achieved thanks to:

  • AMD Enduro technology for a longer battery life;
  • AMD Start Now technology for quick boot-up and resume from sleep mode
  • AMD Turbo Core technology adding turbo mode when more performance is required.

The company is apparently focusing their efforts ion Windows, and end-users would have to use BlueStacks running on top of Windows for Android support.

Anantech got hold of an 11.6″ tablet reference design (Discovery Tablet) powered by A10 Micro-6700T, and running Windows 8.1. Benchmarks showed most individual tests easily outperforming Intel Atom “Bay Trail” Z3770 quad core processor in terms of CPU performance.

CPU Benchmark

CPU Benchmark – Cinebench R11.50

Multi-threaded performance was however similar to Z3770 in Cinebench multi-threaded benchmark.  The A10 Micro-6700T powered tablet  was also clearly ahead in JavaScript/Web Browser test against platform such as Asus Transformer Book T100 (Intel Atom Z3740) and Apple iPad Air. One oddity was the lower performance of the reference tablet with PCMark7 which tests the overall system performance. Anandtech assumed the disappointing score may be due to other components of the tablet or thermal limits of the tablet.

GPU Benchmark

GPU Benchmark – Futuremark 3DMark

They could not compare GPU performance against competing platforms, but the latest AMD processor appears to have a decent GPU performance considering the 4.5W TDP Mullins processor can match, and even slightly outperform, AMD’s Kabini AMD-5000 with 15W TDP.

More benchmark results are also available via Hot hardware.

Anandtech did not have to test the power consumption of the device. But using numbers provided by AMD, Anandtech compared the idle power consumption between AMD Mulins (620 mW) and Qualcomm Snapdragon (320mW), and it’s clear although AMD has made tremendous improvement in terms of power consumption, they can’t quite match ARM, at least when it comes to idle power consumption, at this point. Later processors will implement an integrated voltage regulator, per part adaptive voltage, and more to lower further power consumption.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter