Cubox-i4x4 - [was Re: Performance of armhf boards]

[Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com>]

On Apr 20, 2016, at 10:26 PM, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> wrote:

> This appears to be a thread forked from a reproducible-builds
> discussion. :)
> 
> On 2016-04-20, Rick Thomas wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016, at 06:36 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>>> I was wondering what is the performance of various armhf boards, for
>>> package building.  
>> ...
>>> cbxi4a-armhf-rb.debian.net            1996        2365        # 4x,4G;
>>> Cubox-i4x4
>>> cbxi4pro0-armhf-rb.debian.net         1973        2743        # 4x,2G;
>>> CuBox-i4Pro
>> ... 
>>> I don't know whether to believe these figures yet!
>>> 
>>>  * cbxi4a/b seem no faster than cbxi4pro0 despite twice the RAM?
> 
>> One personal experience that may be relevant:
>> 
>> I ordered a Cubox-i4x4 from NewEgg a few months ago.  When it arrived it
>> was clearly marked as a 4x4, and in the original shrink-wrap, But it
>> only had 2GB of RAM.  I notified NewEgg and they tested one of the other
>> one's of that batch they had in stock.  Surprise!  It also had only 2GB
>> RAM...  They gave me a rebate of the difference in price between the
>> i4-Pro and the 4x4 and we considered the matter closed.
> 
> Well, you need to either use the vendor u-boot with support for more
> ram, or patch mainline u-boot to use more. Haven't taken the time to
> write a patch that works with all the various ram configurations, so
> haven't pushed anything mainline.
> 
> The cubox-i4x4 I am running with a one or two line patched mainline
> u-boot but effectively are limited to 3.8GB, but that's still
> significantly more than 2GB.
> 
> 
> live well,
>  vagrant