Embedded Developer

The score is 275.34 at 168 MHz clock speed. CoreMark Size    : 666 Total ticks      : 21786 Total time (secs): 21.786989 Iterations/Sec   : 275.393585 Iterations       : 536999700 Compiler version : GCC7.2.1 20170904 (release) [ARM/embedded-7-branch revision 255204] Compiler flags   :  Memory location  : STACK seedcrc          : 0xe9f5 [536999700]crclist       : 0xe714 [536999700]crcmatrix     : 0x1fd7 [536999700]crcstate      : 0x8e3a [536999700]crcfinal      : 0xa14c CoreMark 1.0 :  275.393585  / GCC7.2.1 20170904 (release) [ARM/embedded-7-branch revision 255204] / STACK STM32F427            = 275.393585/168[MHz] = 1.63 TM4C123GH6PM   = 101.1378/80[MHz] = 1.26 It looks like it is not pure MHz what matter in MCU speed.

Lately, on STM page I have found out they put Coremark scores on brochures for the microcontrollers.  I was wondering what competitors scores, so I couldn't find anything for Texas Instrument. On https://www.eembc.org/ I have found out there is a source code of Caremark which can be ported on any platform, so I decided to port it on Tiva TM4C123GH6PM and test it. Here are the results: 2K performance run parameters for coremark. CoreMark Size    : 666 Total ticks      : 19775 Total time (secs): 19.774999 Iterations/Sec   : 101.1378 Iterations       : 2000 Compiler version : GCC7.2.1 20170904 (release) [ARM/embedded-7-branch revision 255204] Compiler flags   : Memory location  : STACK seedcrc          : 0xe9f5 [0]crclist       : 0xe714 [0]crcmatrix     : 0x1fd7 [0]crcstate      : 0x8e3a [0]crcfinal      : 0x4983 Correct operation validated. See README.md for run and reporting rules. CoreMark 1.0 :  101.1378 /  GCC7.2.1 20170904 (release) [ARM/embedded-7-branch r