From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <eric@eukrea.com>
Received: from smtp3-g21.free.fr (smtp3-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.3])
	by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68FEEE01493
	for <meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org>;
	Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e6520eb (unknown [82.233.81.124]) (Authenticated sender: eukrea)
	by smtp3-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9AACAA6239;
	Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:27:22 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:27:21 +0200
From: Eric =?ISO-8859-1?B?QuluYXJk?= <eric@eukrea.com>
To: Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com>
Message-ID: <20130828222721.07cd5727@e6520eb>
In-Reply-To: <521E4189.9060005@freescale.com>
References: <521E28B7.7040105@freescale.com> <521E3159.7010908@freescale.com>
	<20130828200037.48571a17@e6520eb> <521E4189.9060005@freescale.com>
Organization: =?ISO-8859-1?B?RXVrculh?= Electromatique
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.19; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
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
	<meta-freescale.yoctoproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.yoctoproject.org/options/meta-freescale>,
	<mailto:meta-freescale-request@yoctoproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-freescale>
List-Post: <mailto:meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:meta-freescale-request@yoctoproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale>,
	<mailto:meta-freescale-request@yoctoproject.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 20:27:32 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Le Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:29:29 -0300,
Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a =E9crit :

> On 08/28/2013 03:00 PM, Eric B=E9nard wrote:
> > Le Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:20:25 -0300,
> > Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> 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 ;-)
>=20
> I took only measure. One time. I haven't calculated the standard=20
> deviation or error from measures.
>=20
> I would say the results is just "equal".
>=20
> And, I'm not sure how much hfp and sfp impacts the result of a task=20
> executed mainly by hardware (gpu).
>=20
>=20
> Do you think, by the results, that there is still any bug?
>=20
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