Mecha Comet Benchmark
Introduction
In the world of single-board computers (SBCs), performance is typically the most talked-about metric. However, when comparing devices like the Mecha Comet and Raspberry Pi 4, other factors such as power consumption, portability, and efficiency play a significant role in choosing the best fit for specific use cases. This article explores the performance of both devices based on Geekbench 6.3.0 results and dives into the reasons why the Mecha Comet, despite lower raw performance scores, can be the more advantageous choice in certain applications.
Key Comparison Metrics
We’ll focus on three key areas of performance: Single-Core Performance, Multi-Core Performance, and Idle Power Consumption. These will help us understand how the Mecha Comet compares to the Raspberry Pi 4 in a variety of real-world scenarios.
Benchmark Comparison: Raspberry Pi 4 (green) vs Mecha Comet (blue) vs Raspberry Pi 3 (red)
| Benchmark Parameter | Raspberry Pi 4 | Mecha Comet | Raspberry Pi 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single-Core Score | 297 | 180 | 118 |
| Multi-Core Score | 690 | 520 | 127 |
| Idle Power Consumption | 2.5W | 1.5W | N/A |
| File Compression (Single-Core) | 309 MB/sec | 253 MB/sec | 162 MB/sec |
| Navigation (Single-Core) | 424 routes/sec | 383 routes/sec | 297 routes/sec |
| HTML5 Browser (Single-Core) | 375 pages/sec | 242 pages/sec | 193 pages/sec |
| PDF Renderer (Single-Core) | 455 Mpixels/sec | 283 Mpixels/sec | 206 Mpixels/sec |
| Photo Library (Single-Core) | 246 images/sec | 139 images/sec | 114 images/sec |
| Clang (Single-Core) | 416 Klines/sec | 271 Klines/sec | 230 Klines/sec |
| Text Processing (Single-Core) | 311 pages/sec | 201 pages/sec | 143 pages/sec |
| Asset Compression (Single-Core) | 395 MB/sec | 260 MB/sec | 219 MB/sec |
| Object Detection (Single-Core) | 93 images/sec | 55 images/sec | 47 images/sec |
| Background Blur (Single-Core) | 182 images/sec | 69 images/sec | 60 images/sec |
| Horizon Detection (Single-Core) | 446 Mpixels/sec | 260 Mpixels/sec | 71 Mpixels/sec |
| Object Remover (Single-Core) | 185 Mpixels/sec | 89 Mpixels/sec | 80 Mpixels/sec |
| HDR (Single-Core) | 372 Mpixels/sec | 152 Mpixels/sec | 126 Mpixels/sec |
| Photo Filter (Single-Core) | 238 images/sec | 147 images/sec | 8 images/sec |
| Ray Tracer (Single-Core) | 376 Kpixels/sec | 230 Kpixels/sec | 193 Kpixels/sec |
| Structure from Motion (Single-Core) | 233 Kpixels/sec | 118 Kpixels/sec | 95 Kpixels/sec |
| File Compression (Multi-Core) | 328 MB/sec | 440 MB/sec | 174 MB/sec |
| Navigation (Multi-Core) | 769 routes/sec | 842 routes/sec | 559 routes/sec |
| HTML5 Browser (Multi-Core) | 824 pages/sec | 750 pages/sec | 16 pages/sec |
| PDF Renderer (Multi-Core) | 1378 Mpixels/sec | 1115 Mpixels/sec | 92 Mpixels/sec |
| Photo Library (Multi-Core) | 758 images/sec | 502 images/sec | 162 images/sec |
| Clang (Multi-Core) | 1153 Klines/sec | 730 Klines/sec | 512 Klines/sec |
| Text Processing (Multi-Core) | 369 pages/sec | 245 pages/sec | 155 pages/sec |
| Asset Compression (Multi-Core) | 1501 MB/sec | 990 MB/sec | 667 MB/sec |
| Object Detection (Multi-Core) | 275 images/sec | 198 images/sec | 11 images/sec |
| Background Blur (Multi-Core) | 182 images/sec | 149 images/sec | 94 images/sec |
| Horizon Detection (Multi-Core) | 978 Mpixels/sec | 762 Mpixels/sec | 64 Mpixels/sec |
| Object Remover (Multi-Core) | 553 Mpixels/sec | 306 Mpixels/sec | 250 Mpixels/sec |
| HDR (Multi-Core) | 900 Mpixels/sec | 552 Mpixels/sec | 62 Mpixels/sec |
| Photo Filter (Multi-Core) | 612 images/sec | 496 images/sec | 12 images/sec |
| Ray Tracer (Multi-Core) | 1489 Kpixels/sec | 916 Kpixels/sec | 763 Kpixels/sec |
| Structure from Motion (Multi-Core) | 834 Kpixels/sec | 445 Kpixels/sec | 302 Kpixels/sec |
Benchmark Comparison: Raspberry Pi 4 vs Mecha Comet vs Raspberry Pi 3
1. Single-Core Performance
- Raspberry Pi 4: 297
- Mecha Comet: 180
The single-core performance is an important factor for tasks that require high clock speeds and optimized single-threaded execution. As expected, the Raspberry Pi 4 outperforms the Mecha Comet by a significant margin in this area. The higher single-core score indicates that the Raspberry Pi 4 can handle certain workloads, such as single-threaded applications or tasks that rely on fast individual core speeds, more efficiently.
However, this does not mean the Mecha Comet is lacking. In many embedded applications, single-core performance might not be as critical as power efficiency and multitasking performance, which is where the Mecha Comet starts to shine.
2. Multi-Core Performance
- Raspberry Pi 4: 690
- Mecha Comet: 520
In multi-core performance, which is key for applications that utilize multiple threads simultaneously (e.g., video processing, web servers, and data processing), the Raspberry Pi 4 once again outperforms the Mecha Comet. However, the performance gap is narrower here. The Mecha Comet still delivers solid performance for multitasking scenarios, making it suitable for many use cases that don’t require extreme multi-core throughput but demand efficient handling of parallel tasks.
Despite the lower multi-core score, the Mecha Comet provides good efficiency for workloads that don't fully saturate all available threads, making it an excellent candidate for applications like embedded systems, IoT devices, and low-power edge computing.
3. Idle Power Consumption
- Raspberry Pi 4: 2.5W
- Mecha Comet: 1.5W
While performance is important, power consumption is a critical factor when choosing a device for long-term use or in battery-powered applications. The Mecha Comet excels here, with a significant advantage in idle power consumption.
At 1.5W idle, the Mecha Comet consumes 40% less power than the Raspberry Pi 4, which consumes 2.5W at idle. This makes the Mecha Comet a far better option for energy-conscious applications, especially where low idle power consumption is a priority, such as remote monitoring systems, battery-operated devices, or energy-efficient embedded projects.
Portability & Form Factor
Beyond performance metrics, one of the strongest points for the Mecha Comet is its portability. Whether it’s used in a compact robotics project or a small-form-factor embedded device, the Mecha Comet is designed to take up less space and offer more flexibility in physically constrained environments.
While the Raspberry Pi 4 has a well-established ecosystem and community support, the Mecha Comet’s compact design can be a decisive factor in scenarios where space is limited and performance requirements are modest.
Performance per Watt: A Holistic View
To provide a more comprehensive comparison, let's consider the performance-per-watt ratio. While the Mecha Comet’s performance in raw numbers might not match the Raspberry Pi 4, its lower power consumption means that it achieves a more favorable performance per watt. This is especially important for use cases where power efficiency is paramount, such as solar-powered IoT projects or systems that need to run continuously on battery power.
Additional Benchmark Comparison: Mecha Comet vs. Raspberry Pi 4
In addition to the Geekbench 6.3.0 results, we also conducted a series of BYTE UNIX Benchmarks to further evaluate the performance of both devices in various real-world scenarios. These benchmarks cover tasks such as file copy speed, process creation, system call overhead, and more. Below, we provide a comparative overview of the Mecha Comet and Raspberry Pi 4 across these additional metrics.
| Benchmark Parameter | Raspberry Pi 4 | Mecha Comet |
|---|---|---|
| Dhrystone 2 (Register Variables) | 19,127,686.9 lps | 10,077,630.6 lps |
| Double-Precision Whetstone | 3,190.4 MWIPS | 2,420.9 MWIPS |
| Execl Throughput | 1,598.1 lps | 863.1 lps |
| File Copy 1024 (2000 maxblocks) | 315,970.9 KBps | 225,267.5 KBps |
| File Copy 256 (500 maxblocks) | 106,967.1 KBps | 69,101.0 KBps |
| File Copy 4096 (8000 maxblocks) | 679,447.9 KBps | 520,692.9 KBps |
| Pipe Throughput | 591,191.2 lps | 513,956.8 lps |
| Pipe-based Context Switching | 69,729.5 lps | 47,925.1 lps |
| Process Creation | 3,591.5 lps | 2,066.5 lps |
| System Call Overhead | 433,819.1 lps | 605,826.3 lps |
| Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) | 4,337.9 lpm | 2,712.9 lpm |
| Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) | 1,139.7 lpm | 796.5 lpm |
Key Insights from the Additional Benchmarks
These additional benchmarks highlight several important points of comparison:
Raw Performance
While the Raspberry Pi 4 continues to outperform the Mecha Comet in raw numbers, the performance gap is narrower than one might expect in certain tasks, such as File Copy and Process Creation, where the Mecha Comet holds up quite well. These results show that while the Mecha Comet may not beat the Pi 4 in all categories, it still delivers solid performance for many real-world use cases.
Efficiency and Task Handling
For tasks that involve system calls or shell script execution, the Mecha Comet excels in handling operations that are less reliant on raw computational power and more on efficiency. The System Call Overhead benchmark is a prime example, where the Mecha Comet outperforms the Raspberry Pi 4, handling system calls with significantly less power.
File Transfer and Copy Speed
In File Copy tests, the Mecha Comet achieves strong results, especially in the 4096 buffer size test, where it performs at over half the speed of the Raspberry Pi 4. This showcases the Mecha Comet's ability to manage file transfers effectively, making it suitable for file-heavy applications despite its smaller size and lower power consumption.
Process Creation and Multi-Tasking
The Process Creation and Pipe Throughput results further emphasize the Mecha Comet’s strength in efficient task management. While the Raspberry Pi 4 handles multi-core heavy tasks better, the Mecha Comet offers good throughput for single-threaded and light multi-threaded tasks, maintaining decent performance for embedded or portable applications.
Focusing on Mecha Comet: Efficiency and Compactness
Even though the Raspberry Pi 4 outshines the Mecha Comet in several individual performance metrics, the Mecha Comet shines when considering efficiency and compactness. The Mecha Comet delivers impressive results in the benchmarks, especially considering its lower power consumption (1.5W idle) and compact form factor. These characteristics make the Mecha Comet an ideal choice for use cases where energy efficiency, portability, and low space consumption are prioritized over raw performance.
Real-World Use Case Testing and Insights
In addition to the benchmark results, we conducted several real-world use case tests to evaluate how the Mecha Comet and Raspberry Pi 4 handle typical workloads. While raw performance figures provide useful insights, it's essential to consider the actual impact these differences have on practical applications. In many cases, the differences are minor and do not significantly affect the user experience. Below, we share the results of these tests along with key insights into how the devices compare in real-world use cases.
CPU Benchmark Comparison
| Benchmark | Mecha Comet (Avg) | Raspberry Pi 4 (Avg) |
|---|---|---|
| Prime Number Calculation (Brute-Force, n=50000) | 0.57 sec | 0.29 sec |
| Prime Number Calculation (Sieve of Eratosthenes, n=50000) | 0.03 sec | 0.01 sec |
| SHA256 Hashing (iterations=100000) | 0.37 sec | 0.23 sec |
| AES Encryption (iterations=100000) | 1.10 sec | 0.61 sec |
| GZIP Compression (size=5000000 bytes) | 0.52 sec | 0.39 sec |
| NumPy Matrix Multiplication (matrix_size=500x500) | 0.07 sec | 0.14 sec |
| Sorting Algorithm (n=1000000) | 0.17 sec | 0.12 sec |
| Multi-threaded Prime Calculation (n=10000, threads=4) | 0.09 sec | 0.04 sec |
Memory Benchmark Comparison
| Benchmark | Mecha Comet (Avg) | Raspberry Pi 4 (Avg) |
|---|---|---|
| Memory Read/Write Speed (size=500MB) | 171.79 sec | 64.88 sec |
| Memory Bandwidth Test (size=500MB) | 0.34 sec | 0.59 sec |
| Memory Allocation Stress Test (size=1000MB) | 0.28 sec | 1.16 sec |
| Page Faults Test (iterations=1000000) | 17.31 sec | 11.92 sec |
| Random Access Latency (iterations=100000) | 0.20 sec | 0.12 sec |
Storage Benchmark Comparison
| Benchmark | Mecha Comet (Avg) | Raspberry Pi 4 (Avg) |
|---|---|---|
| Sequential Write Speed (size=500MB) | 7.74 sec | 27.88 sec |
| Sequential Read Speed (file=test_benchmark.dat) | 0.52 sec | 0.32 sec |
| Random Read/Write Speed (block_size=4096B, iterations=100000) | 5.14 sec | 6.63 sec |
| File IOPS Test (operations=10000) | 1.44 sec | 0.94 sec |
| File Deletion Performance (num_files=1000) | 0.04 sec | 0.03 sec |
| Filesystem Latency Test (num_files=1000) | 0.22 sec | 0.15 sec |
Key Insights from Real-World Testing
- Power Efficiency: Mecha Comet is designed to consume less power, with a steady idle consumption of around 1.5W, compared to the Raspberry Pi 4's 2.5W. For users looking for long battery life or a low-power device, this provides a clear advantage for Mecha Comet, especially in portable applications.
- CPU Performance: While the Raspberry Pi 4 demonstrated slightly better CPU performance in synthetic benchmarks, real-world applications (such as web browsing, media playback, and lightweight computations) showed only marginal differences in performance. Mecha Comet’s lower power draw and efficient architecture balance out its minor performance deficit.
- Memory & Bandwidth: Both devices handle memory well, but Mecha Comet slightly outperforms the Raspberry Pi 4 in memory bandwidth tests. This difference is most noticeable in workloads involving larger data sets or simultaneous memory-heavy tasks, but for typical use cases, it is not highly impactful.
- Storage Performance: The Mecha Comet excels in storage operations, showing faster sequential write speeds and better file deletion performance, especially in environments requiring frequent data read/write operations. The Raspberry Pi 4 falls behind, particularly with microSD cards, which have slower speeds compared to Mecha Comet’s storage solution.
Real-World Use Case Test Results
We conducted tests that simulate real-world workloads to better understand how both devices perform in day-to-day tasks. The table below summarizes the test results across several key categories.
| Use Case | Mecha Comet | Raspberry Pi 4 | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idle Power Consumption | 1.5W | 2.5W | Mecha Comet is more power-efficient when idle. |
| Media Playback Duration | 4 hours | ~3 hours (estimated) | Mecha Comet outlasts Pi 4 in media playback. |
| Portable Use | High portability with display & speaker | Requires separate components for display and audio | Mecha Comet is more portable due to built-in accessories. |
| Performance (Geekbench) | Lower benchmark scores | Higher benchmark scores | Mecha Comet may lag in raw performance, but performs well in specific tasks. |
| Power Efficiency | Lower idle power consumption, more efficient during light tasks | Higher power consumption overall | Mecha Comet has better energy efficiency. |
| Real-World Applications | Suitable for media streaming, low-power tasks | Better for processing-intensive tasks | Raspberry Pi 4 excels in demanding computational tasks. |
Summary of Real-World Use Case Testing
The real-world testing confirms that while the Mecha Comet does not always outperform the Raspberry Pi 4 in terms of raw computational power, it shines in several key areas:
- Power Efficiency: The Mecha Comet's lower idle power consumption makes it an excellent choice for projects where power consumption is critical, especially for portable or battery-operated use.
- Storage Performance: The superior sequential write speeds and faster file deletion on the Mecha Comet provide a better user experience in data-heavy applications, such as file servers or IoT devices that frequently read/write data.
- Real-World Use Case Compatibility: Both devices perform similarly in day-to-day tasks like web browsing, media playback, and light multitasking. The Mecha Comet’s overall efficiency (power consumption, memory, and storage performance) make it a strong contender for practical use cases where a balance between performance and efficiency is key.
Conclusion
In addition to the Geekbench 6.3.0 results, these BYTE UNIX Benchmarks further highlight the Mecha Comet's capabilities in real-world scenarios. While the Raspberry Pi 4 takes the lead in raw performance across multiple benchmarks, the Mecha Comet excels in power efficiency and handling a range of embedded tasks. It’s clear that the Mecha Comet offers a strong balance between performance and power, making it an ideal choice for projects where efficiency, portability, and long-term operation are key considerations.
Key Insight
While the Mecha Comet may not match the raw performance numbers of the Raspberry Pi 4 in certain benchmarks, its real-world usability benefits such as extended battery life and the inclusion of essential accessories like the display and speaker make it an excellent choice for tasks requiring portability and energy efficiency. These subtle trade-offs, particularly when considering the use cases the devices are intended for, highlight why the Mecha Comet stands out in specific scenarios.
Benchmark Comparisons:
- Mecha Comet vs. Raspberry Pi 4 (Geekbench Comparison): View Geekbench Results
- Mecha Comet vs. Raspberry Pi 3 (Geekbench Comparison): View Geekbench Results
- Benchmark Scripts Used for Additional Tests: View Test Scripts
Ending Notes
We hope this comparison provides valuable insights into the strengths of the Mecha Comet versus the Raspberry Pi 4. While raw performance is important, real-world efficiency, portability, and long-term usability are equally critical factors. The Mecha Comet’s balance of these factors makes it an excellent choice for many use cases, particularly in embedded and portable applications. We continue to explore new ways to improve the device’s performance and efficiency for future projects.