Still no dogwood?

When does my FIR get here XD xD XD

1 Like

See my thoughts on Fir: When will Librem 5 Batch Fir be Available for Purchase? I have not cut anything out, this is what it’s standard output was. Funny thing to find out was someone made a fount end gui for it that I noticed during the time I had it installed. So that is nice I guess?


Also, the phone properly got fairly hot for once during this due to charging and this being fairly intensive at the same time. Still not so hot that it was uncomfortable or anything, this is the hottest I’ve ever had the phone. So, guess it’s not advice able to run a benchmark while charging.

Found how to properly do it in the power settings. Under power saving, called “blank screen” I’ll try your ideas in the following days.

1 Like

@dylanlesterpvcs, Thanks for posting the benchmarks.

I did a totally unfair comparison with my Thinkpad T450s laptop (2-core/4-thread Core CPU), and the Librem 5 doesn’t do that bad in the comparison, when we consider the differences in power consumption and the cost of the processors.

Benchmark 4x 2.7GHz Core i5-5200U Librem 5 (4x 1.5GHz Cortex-A53) Times better
CPU Blowfish 4.94 8.81 1.8x
CPU CryptoHash 432.63 105.57 4.1x
CPU Fibonacci 0.82 3.36 4.1x
CPU N-Queens 7.01 5.31 1.3x
CPU Zlib 0.47 0.18 2.6x
FPU FFT 2.10 9.86 4.7x
FPU Raytracing 2.10 5.08 2.4x

I ran those same on a couple of years old work laptop (i5 4x2.53Mhz M540 2core/4thread) and it looks even better: 5.59 / 245.3 / 0.9 / 7.62 / 0.38 / 3.24 / 2.92 It’s not the killer of the latest laptops, but the difference is small compared to the weight and volume.

1 Like

I’m still trying to work out whether a smaller number is better or a larger number is better. It seems inconsistent.


My guess is that @amosbatto’s table shows timings in seconds. In that case smaller is better, and the “Times better” column means how much faster the ThinkPad was compared to the Librem 5 for that particular test.

It surely is inconsistent. @amosbatto, look at lines 2 and 3. 4 times better or worse? Something seems mixed up.

1 Like

It would have to be timings in seconds for some rows and work achieved (e.g. hashes performed or bytes encrypted) in fixed amount of time in other rows to make sense to me.

I would run it myself but the program appears to hang on my computer - but that’s another problem …

The results (if you want to run your own tests) and keys are from hardinfo - or in my case the GUI version “System profiler and Benchmark”.
CPU Blowfish: lower number is better
CPU Cryptohash: higher
CPU Fibonacci: lower
CPU N-Queens: lower
CPU Zlib: higher
FPU FFT: lower
FPU: Raytracing: lower

Also, at the end of @dylanlesterpvcs data (and the GUI) there are reference results to compare also (although a bit older CPUs but still).

1 Like

If anyone has a PinePhone, can you please run the hardinfo -r command on it?

I asked on the PinePhone forum, but the results in Ubuntu Touch don’t make sense, so I would like to see the results from other distros.

The guy on the PinePhone forum re-ran hardinfo in Mobian Nightly using a recent version of hardinfo, and now the results seem reasonable. Here are the results:

Benchmark Thinkpad T450s (4x 2.7GHz Core i5-5200U) Librem 5 (4x 1.5GHz Cortex-A53) PinePhone (4x 1.152GHz Cortex-A53) i5 vs L5 % difference L5 vs PP % difference
CPU Blowfish 4.94 8.81 12.58 78% 43%
CPU CryptoHash 432.63 105.57 104.85 310% 1%
CPU Fibonacci 0.82 3.36 3.36 310% 0%
CPU N-Queens 7.01 5.31 10.27 -24% 93%
CPU Zlib 0.47 0.18 0.12 161% 50%
FPU FFT 2.10 9.86 17.81 370% 81%
FPU Raytracing 2.10 5.08 9.80 142% 93%

Based on the 30% difference in clock speed between the Librem 5 and PinePhone, and the much faster RAM in the Librem 5 (LPDDR4-3200 vs LPDDR3-1264), I expected a 40%-50% difference in performance, which is what we see in Blowfish and Zlib, but everything else surprised me.

For CryptoHash and Fibonacci, the Librem 5 and PinePhone were the same. For some reason, the i.MX 8M Quad is really good at N-Queens–even better than a fifth-gen Core i5.

It isn’t clear to me whether the floating point benchmarks are being run in the CPU or the GPU. I expect that the Vivante GC7000Lite in the Librem 5 will have twice the graphics performance of the Mali-400 MP2 in the PinePhone. @dos’s gaming tests (1 2 3) showed a big difference in the GPU performance. I wish that we had some more GPU benchmarks to compare the two phones.


I placed my order back in Nov. Any idea when I’ll receive my librem 5?

I’m in the EU.

I think it would be about time for another betting pool on that… [edit: What do we use in stead of Brexit? :crazy_face:]

@Kyle_Rankin indicated that “mid-to-late” November would be the start for shipping them. In general there were some previous assumptions made about possible challenges by @amosbatto, which may or may not be relevant. (Btw. those would be better threads for this question at the moment)

For an individual (pre)order, @antpanlinux made a nice approximation on how fast they can be assembled, so it could be made into a formula which includes your number in queue and how many people are assembling the phones. Plus the shipping and such delays.

November does not unfortunately mean you are near the front of the queue, if this thread is to be believed.

1 Like

@amosbatto I’ve ran some benchmarks (hardinfo and glmark2) on my Librem 5 Dogwood and PinePhone Breaveheart:

I have mostly removed the section about network (nothing interesting there, just some info about my LAN :P) and disabled terrain test in glmark2, since it makes the whole process hang on the PinePhone:

Error: SceneTerrain requires Vertex Texture Fetch support, but GL_MAX_VERTEX_TEXTURE_IMAGE_UNITS is 0
[terrain] <default>: Unsupported

It works on the Librem 5:

[terrain] <default>: FPS: 12 FrameTime: 83.333 ms

but to make the scores easier to compare I’ve also disabled it in the test run there.

I’m running pretty much the exact same userspace on both devices (based on Debian Buster), with PinePhone’s bootloader and kernel coming from Mobian.


If Purism manufactures the Librem 5 in one large production batch, then we should all get Evergreen at close to the same time. Electronics assemblers in China don’t take that long to produce 5k-10k of phones. Maybe they are putting in the M.2 cards in San Francisco, but that shouldn’t take that long.

Most likely you are in the evergreen batch which will probably begin shipping q4 of 2020-q2 of 2021 due to covid false plandemic.

1 Like

@dos, Your hardinfo benchmarks are generally better than what @dylanlesterpvcs reported for Dogwood and what evilbunny reported for the PinePhone running Mobian Nightly:

Benchmark Librem 5 (4x 1.5GHz Cortex-A53, @dylanlesterpvcs) Librem 5 (4x 1.5GHz Cortex-A53, @dos) PinePhone (4x 1.15GHz Cortex-A53, Mobian Nightly) PinePhone (4x 1.15GHz Cortex-A53, @dos)
↓ CPU Blowfish 8.81 8.44 12.58 11.27
↑ CPU CryptoHash 105.57 160.14 104.85 118.55
↓ CPU Fibonacci 3.36 3.35 3.36 4.36
↓ CPU N-Queens 5.31 5.26 10.27 7.45
↑ CPU Zlib 0.18 0.21 0.12 0.11
↓ FPU FFT 9.86 9.44 17.81 14.15
↓ FPU Raytracing 5.08 4.81 9.80 7.12
↑ GLMark2 203 84

↑ Benchmark where higher is better.
↓ Benchmark where lower is better.

I ran hardinfo on my Thinkpad T450s and Raspberry Pi 4B to get a comparison, but I can’t figure out how to run glmark2 without the terrain scene. I tried this command, but it gave very different results for all the tests:
glmark2 -b build -b texture -b shading -b bump -b effect2d -b pulsar -b desktop -b buffer -b ideas -b jellyfish -b shadow -b refract -b conditionals -b function -b loop

Can you share the glmark2 command you used?

On the Raspberry Pi 4B, glmark2 compiles, but I ran into a bug while running the [texture] texture-filter=linear scene.

So here is the comparison, combining your numbers and mine:

Benchmark Thinkpad T450s (4x 2.7GHz Core i5-5200U) Raspberry Pi 4B (4x 1.5GHz Cortex-A72) Librem 5 (4x 1.5GHz Cortex-A53) PinePhone (4x 1.15GHz Cortex-A53) L5 vs RPi4B PP vs RP4B L5 vs PP
↓ CPU Blowfish 4.94 6.87 8.44 11.27 -23% -64% 34%
↑ CPU CryptoHash 432.63 346.8 160.14 118.55 -117% -193% 35%
↓ CPU Fibonacci 0.82 2.25 3.35 4.36 -49% -94% 30%
↓ CPU N-Queens 7.01 11.57 5.26 7.45 55% 36% 42%
↑ CPU Zlib 0.47 0.25 0.21 0.11 -19% -127% 91%
↓ FPU FFT 2.10 5.29 9.44 14.15 -78% -167% 50%
↓ FPU Raytracing 2.10 2.87 4.81 7.12 -68% -148% 48%
↑ GLMark2* 850 203 84 142%

↑ Benchmark where higher is better.
↓ Benchmark where lower is better.
*GLMark2 is without the “terrain” test for the Librem 5 and PinePhone, but includes it for the T450s.

The N-Queens benchmark is strange, because the i.MX 8M Quad did better at it than both the i5 and the RPi4B. Otherwise, everything else is close to what I expected with the Librem 5’s CPU having 30% to 50% better performance than the PinePhone’s CPU and the Vivante GC7000Lite getting more than double the performance of the Mali-400 MP2. The strong Zlib compression scores by the Librem 5 is probably a reflection of its faster memory access with its LPDDR4-3200 RAM, compared to the PinePhone’s pokey LPDDR3-1248 RAM.

These results should make everyone happy. The backers of the Librem 5 can feel good that they are getting significantly better performance than the PinePhone, and TheLinuxGamer should be happy that he’ll get decent graphics performance on the Librem 5. On the other hand, the critics of the Librem 5 can point out that the Librem 5’s performance is significantly less than the Raspberry Pi 4B, which only costs $35. The backers of the PinePhone who bought it for economic reasons can look at the results and conclude the difference in the price between the two phones doesn’t justify the difference in performance.

Everyone can see what they want in the numbers, so we should all rejoice and sing “Kumbaya”.