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

Reply via email to