Test date: 9/1/2020
CPU:Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700 CPU @ 3.60GHz
OS :ubuntu 18.04 64-bit
Compiler:gcc version 7.5.0 (Ubuntu 7.5.0-3ubuntu1~18.04), flag: O3
performance comparison:
workload wamr-aot / wasm3 wasm3 / wamr-interpreter wamr-aot / GCC(O3) wamr interpreters (fast/classic) matrix 22.02 1.23 0.68 2.47 gimli 9.94 1.07 0.94 2.08 CoreMark 8.79 1.32 0.79 2.52Note:
matrix
and gimli
are measured by the execution time, and CoreMark
is measured by its reported score. A/B denotes the execution_time_of_B/execution_time_of_A, or the score_of_A/score_of_B. For example, matrix 22.02 means that execution_time_of_wasm3/execution_time_of_wamr-aot is 22.02, CoreMakr 8.79 means score_of_wamr-aot/score_of_wasm3 is 8.79.Board: nucleo_f767zi (ARMV7 Cortex-M7)
OS : Zephyr
Compiler: arm-zephyr-eabi-gcc (crosstool-NG 1.24.0.37-3f461da-dirty) 9.2.0, Os
performance comparison:
workload wamr-aot/wasm3 wasm3/wamr-interpreter wamr interpreters (fast/classic) matrix 30.17 1.06 1.65 gimli 19.13 1.11 2.03 seqhash 21.12 1.15 1.34workload: CoreMark
measurement tool: valgrind/massif
Compilation option: -Os
Workload GCC compiled native binary (Bytes) Wasm bytecode (Bytes) iwasm-aot module (Bytes) coremark 23120 10457 17348 base64 8792 1026 1840 gimli 8640 498 1080The page is also a response to the data published by wasm3 at https://github.com/wasm3/wasm3/blob/master/docs/Performance.md.
Some background of the performance comparison between WAMR and wasm3:
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-micro-runtime/issues/134
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4