Pi Pico 2W (RISC-V) vs Teensy 4.0
Hazard3 RV32IMAC (RP2350) at 150 MHz against Cortex-M7 (i.MX RT1062) at 600 MHz, on real hardware, same C kernels, clocks verified.
Pi Pico 2W (RISC-V)
Hazard3 RV32IMAC (RP2350)
- Family
- RISC-V
- Board
- Pi Pico 2W (RISC-V)
- Clock
- 150 MHz
- float / double
- 32-bit / 64-bit
Teensy 4.0
Cortex-M7 (i.MX RT1062)
- Family
- Arm Cortex-M
- Board
- Teensy 4.0
- Clock
- 600 MHz
- float / double
- 32-bit / 64-bit
Typical gap
11.0×
Teensy 4.0 faster, geometric mean of 30 cells
Biggest win for Pi Pico 2W (RISC-V)
0.18×
uint8_t multiply
Biggest win for Teensy 4.0
64.5×
double multiply
Clock for clock
2.75×
Teensy 4.0 needs fewer cycles per op (4.00× clock gap)
Operation by operation
Every cell
How many times faster Pi Pico 2W (RISC-V) is than Teensy 4.0, operations per second. Blue: Pi Pico 2W (RISC-V) ahead. Orange: Teensy 4.0 ahead.
| Add | Subtract | Multiply | Divide | Modulo | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| uint8_t | 1/6.33× 12.2 M/s · 77.4 M/s | 1/5.65× 13.3 M/s · 75.3 M/s | 1/5.65× 13.3 M/s · 75.3 M/s | 1/9.88× 5.3 M/s · 52.3 M/s | 1/8.74× 5.3 M/s · 46.3 M/s |
| uint16_t | 1/6.66× 11.3 M/s · 75.3 M/s | 1/6.63× 11.3 M/s · 75 M/s | 1/6.52× 10.5 M/s · 68.6 M/s | 1/8.39× 4.94 M/s · 41.5 M/s | 1/7.83× 4.79 M/s · 37.5 M/s |
| uint32_t | 1/6.77× 12.2 M/s · 82.8 M/s | 1/7.58× 11.3 M/s · 85.7 M/s | 1/6.07× 11.3 M/s · 68.6 M/s | 1/7.96× 4.94 M/s · 39.3 M/s | 1/7.05× 4.94 M/s · 34.8 M/s |
| uint64_t | 1/7.70× 8.2 M/s · 63.2 M/s | 1/7.70× 8.2 M/s · 63.2 M/s | 1/5.92× 7.39 M/s · 43.7 M/s | 1/6.74× 822 k/s · 5.54 M/s | 1/6.98× 794 k/s · 5.54 M/s |
| float | 1/32.0× 2.43 M/s · 77.7 M/s | 1/32.0× 2.43 M/s · 77.7 M/s | 1/26.1× 2.98 M/s · 77.7 M/s | 1/35.6× 758 k/s · 27 M/s | 1/5.83× 1.14 M/s · 6.67 M/s |
| double | 1/46.2× 1.21 M/s · 56 M/s | 1/44.0× 1.24 M/s · 54.7 M/s | 1/64.5× 678 k/s · 43.7 M/s | 1/39.8× 394 k/s · 15.7 M/s | 1/6.62× 731 k/s · 4.84 M/s |