Does Vortex86sx based devices are worth something?

At FOSDEM 2009 I grabbed one Vortex86SX based device — Koala Nano PC which is available at Koan software. Device came with Ångström distribution and was running 2.6.26 kernel. I wanted to get something more fresh on it and after some fighting I booted 2.6.29-rc5 kernel today.

Device use Vortex86SX SoC which is based on 486SX core. Yes — this is x86 machine without FPU. Overall speed of that is… nearly not existing.

First benchmark which came to my mind was “hdparm -T /dev/sda”. Results were dramatic: 9-13 MB/s for cached reads (with 133MHz memory and 300MHz cpu). I decided to compare against other devices:

DeviceArchCPUCPU speedmemory typecached reads
Koala Nano PCx86vortex86sx300MHzDDR29-13MB/s
old PCx86pentium2266MHzEDO DRAM33MB/s
ATNGW100av32AT32AP700x130MHzSDRAM35MB/s
ASUS WL-500gPmipsbcm3302266MHz46MB/s
Freecom FSG-3armipx42x266MHz43MB/s
iBook G3ppcg3300MHzSDRAM65MB/s
AT91SAM9263-EKarmat91sam9263180MHzSDRAM62-63MB/s
Compulabarmpxa270312MHzSDRAM74MB/s
NSLU2armixp420266MHzSDRAM74MB/s
Koala nano33x86vortex86dx1GHzDDR274MB/s
Nokia N810armomap2420400MHzSDRAM82MB/s
AT91SAM9G20-EKarmat91sam9G20400MHzSDRAM96MB/s
Linkstation pro duoarmixp4xx266MHz147MB/s
BeagleBoardarmomap3530500MHzmDDR152MB/s
Alix.1cx86geodelx500MHzDDR209MB/s
kirkwood reference board1armkirkwood1200MHzDDR2209MB/s
BUGarmi.mx31533MHzDDR294MB/s
my desktopx86core2quad2400MHzDDR23300-3500MB/s
Cliff’s desktopx86Core-i7 920 Quad2.67GHzDDR36400-7200MB/s

But remember that this test is not so good for benchmarking — I am preparing better set of tests to really compare speed of devices. So far it contains openssl speed and MP3 encoding/decoding.

But device has also few nice things. Everything is integrated so 12x12cm box is enough to keep everything inside. It has ATA controller, FastEthernet, graphics based on XGI core (with accelerated framebuffer able to do 1680×1050 resolution) and working USB. There is a place to put 2.5″ HDD inside (normally it boots from CompactFlash card), second Ethernet or WiFi are available options…

But what is use for such slow device? There are lot of ARM based ones which offer similar (or better) functionality and are faster… But wait — there is one use: event displays as this machine has nicely working framebuffer (I got even 1680×1050 resolution).

UPDATE: added results from iBook G3 300MHz and some other machines.


  1. kirkwood reference board uses same cpu as SheevaPlug device. 

23 thoughts on “Does Vortex86sx based devices are worth something?

  1. diego roversi

    I’ve tried one of them, and the only interesting feature is the low price. Speed is quite disappointing, but it’s cheap and have a lot of connector (and 24 gpio port easy to reach).

    I wonder if it is really a 300Mhz cpu…

    And i wonder if vortex86dx processor have better performance.

  2. Punkto

    What configuration did you use to run kernel version 2.6.29-rc5? I’m trying to use Debian Lenny un a Vortex86SX box but I cant boot the X server. Maybe with that kernel I can.

  3. mangoo

    Some more results:

    ASUS WL-500gP | Broadcom BCM3302 V0.6 | 266 MHz | 46 MB/s Freecom FSG-3 | XScale-IXP42x Family rev 1 (v5l) | 266 MHz | 43 MB/s

  4. Marcin Juszkiewicz

    Jason Kridner: thx for information. Results which I put in table I got from one of BeagleBoard users (I am waiting for C2 version). But according to post which you link to that 741MB/s is in L2 cache only.

    I plan to check some benchmark utilities and do better tests.

  5. mck

    Although final result may be interesting, I think that you should specify the storage type and model in this table, because “hdparm -T /dev/sda” is a test of IDE/SATA performances and not only a CPU/Motherboard one.

  6. Marcin Juszkiewicz

    mck: Let me quote hdparm manual:

    -T Perform timings of cache reads for benchmark and comparison purposes. For meaningful results, this operation should be repeated 2-3 times on an otherwise inactive system (no other active processes) with at least a couple of megabytes of free memory. This displays the speed of reading directly from the Linux buffer cache without disk access. This measurement is essentially an indication of the throughput of the processor, cache, and memory of the system under test.

    This is without disk access…

  7. mck

    @ Cliff I’m astonished by your results. Could you please post your machine details (cpu, motherboard, ram, hd brand and model) ? thanks

  8. pitsch

    useful comparision. would be interesting to see where an atom based eeepc/eeebox would fit in here. wonder if Asus will expand on their low end and come up with an arm based “plug” with an own optware package feed. the i.mx31 sure is nice, but a headless nas/router box probably needs no video in/out.

  9. Damian

    Hi, Please could you post your xorg.conf, I can’t get the 1680×1050 resolution.

    Thanks.

  10. Dima Tisnek

    Vortex86sx/dx are great for these reasons:

    • cheap, full pc with all the ports for just 70 to 90 usd [compactpc.com.tw]
    • runs x86 code, e.g. official binary releases or flash

    That said, sx is too slow for e.g. youtube or ipython startup, and ide driver is slightly broken so dma must be disabled, thus the meager io results.

    Dx feels 10 times faster (although only 3x in clock speed).

    1. Marcin Juszkiewicz

      Sure, they have some value — I used vortex86sx for some time to keep papers from flying on my desk.

      Vortex86DX is much faster mainly due to no need for FPU exception handling. Maybe you know how good/bad does MX graphics works? With SX/DX it was usually XGI chip used and I do not remember which gfx chipset MX got.

  11. DIma Tisnek

    It is more useful than a paperweight, we have a few hundred of these deployed. Very few come back cooked, compactflash on the other hand is less reliable. DX supports microSD which is great improvement.

    I only use compactpc’s in headless applications. I didn’t get native vga driver that to work, because XGI drivers are too old for modern X.org server and I didn’t have that much time.

    3300DX uses the same chip as SX. MX integrates gfx on chip, no idea what it is.

  12. André Cutri

    Hi, my name is André. I need you help to fix a problem we have, I´m trying the ebox-2300 with processor vortex86sx 366mhz. to remote boot. I installed the system ubuntu 9.04 with LTSP-Server and when boot the system for PXE display de mensagem beloow:

       This kernel requires the following feature not present on the CPU: FPU
         Unable to boot - please use a kernel appropriate for you CPU. 
    

    And when i boot other machine with processor intel on the network it´s start no problem.

    Thanks.

    1. Marcin Juszkiewicz

      Vortex86sx has i486sx core so it lacks floating point unit. You need to compile own kernel with FPU emulation enabled.

      And remember that Ubuntu is compiled for i686 systems — you will have to use Debian with this machines.

Comments are closed.

No Trackbacks.