<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>riscv on toorun.dev</title><link>https://toorun.dev/tags/riscv/</link><description>Recent content in riscv on toorun.dev</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:30:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://toorun.dev/tags/riscv/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>CPU Performance Metrics in Embedded Systems: MIPS, DMIPS, CoreMark, MHz, FLOPS, and What Actually Matters</title><link>https://toorun.dev/posts/cpu-performance-metrics-embedded-systems-mips-dmips-coremark-mhz-flops/</link><pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:30:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://toorun.dev/posts/cpu-performance-metrics-embedded-systems-mips-dmips-coremark-mhz-flops/</guid><description>CPU Performance Metrics in Embedded Systems: MIPS, DMIPS, CoreMark, MHz, FLOPS, and What Actually Matters If you have ever compared two microcontrollers and asked &amp;ldquo;which one is faster?&amp;rdquo;, you have probably seen a mix of numbers: clock speed in megahertz, marketing slides with DMIPS, benchmark charts with CoreMark, and sometimes floating-point claims in MFLOPS or GFLOPS.
Those numbers are useful, but they are also easy to misuse.
A 240 MHz device can outperform a 400 MHz device in one task, then lose badly in another.</description></item></channel></rss>