Performance

Performance and memory

Test date: 9/1/2020

X86-64 platform:

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	2.52

Note：

• WAMR provides two interpreters - the fast version for advanced performance and and the classic version smaller footprint respectively.
• Workload CoreMark is measured by its reported scores, and other workloads matrix and gimli are measured by the execution time.

ARMV7 Cortex-M7:

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	1.34

Memory consumption

workload: CoreMark
measurement tool: valgrind/massif

WASM interpreter	Peak memory usage
WAMR classic	365KB
WAMR fast	485KB
wasm3	514KB

WASM application binary size

Compilation option: -Os

Workload	GCC compiled native binary (KB)	Wasm bytecode (KB)	iwasm-aot module (KB)**
coremark	23120	10457	17348
base64	8792	1026	1840
gimli	8640	498	1080

Misc.

The 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