Joel, Are you saying you gave up on using the PCIe at all?
There's a 4-lane PCIe connector on the Rock64 right, aren't those dedicated lanes, and, if they'd somehow be shared with any other hardware, then you should still have supposedly >90% of the 16gbps capacity available? Did you try connecting some multiport 1gbps or 10gbps PCIe NIC? Geekbench figures indicate that RK3399 and Celeron N3160 should perform fairly similarly. https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?q=rk3399 https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=n3160 https://ark.intel.com/products/91831/Intel-Celeron-Processor-N3160-2M-Cache-up-to-2_24-GHz On August 27, 2018 5:51 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling <j...@aenertia.net> wrote: > I do actually have an rk3399 (firefly) - like you I also had high hopes for > it. > > It's still the best out of the Arm boards I've tried, but the lanes > are shared with the GMAC on the SoC so you end up not getting what you > might hope for; you can Sorta get another Gigabit port by using the > USB-C port and a reasonably good adaptor; but latency's are all over > the board when you start to wire in the network over USB NICs. > > Sustained duplex Gigabit is mostly achievable. But again for the > price/perfomance the n3160 that currently is my gateway blows it out > of the water. And the firefly was twice as expensive. > > On 28 August 2018 at 00:15, Joseph Mayer joseph.ma...@protonmail.com wrote: .. > > Please note that the RK3399 (e.g. Pine64 ROCK64) supports a normal PCIe > > networking card, and its PCIe bus bandwidth is four PCIe version 2.1 > > lanes, meaning 4 x 4 gbps = 16gbps = 2GBps. > > I have not benchmarked this and do not know how this compares with > > Octeon, but it should be decent-to-very-good. > > http://opensource.rock-chips.com/images/6/60/Rockchip_RK3399_Datasheet_V1.6-20170301.pdf
