# Performance Evaluation Method for Intelligent Computing Components for Space Applications
## 4 Benchmark Execution and Evaluation
### Typical Application Benchmark Experimental Results
#### 4.4.2 AES Encryption Algorithm Benchmark Test Results  
The AES encryption algorithm experiment with encrypting data of different lengths using three key lengths: 128-bit, 192-bit, and 256-bit. To improve the accuracy of the experiments and avoid exceptional cases, an average of 20 experimental results was taken for each platform under the same experimental conditions. The throughput and power results of the AES encryption algorithm experiment on three platforms are shown in Tables 7 and 8 below.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Image Size**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Power Consumption**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Jetson AGX Xavier**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ASUS FL8000**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Loongson Platform**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **CPU (Omp)** & **GPU (Cuda)** & **CPU (Omp)** & **GPU (Cuda)** & **CPU (Omp)** & **GPU (Cuda)** \\ \hline
1024 \(\times\) 1024 & 10.85 & 8.7 & 11.2 & 21.5 & 82.3 & 80.9 \\
2048 \(\times\) 2048 & 17.1 & 9.9 & 20.6 & 26.8 & 84.6 & 83.55 \\
4096 \(\times\) 4096 & 20.5 & 14.7 & 25.9 & 29.3 & 85.3 & 90.5 \\
8192 \(\times\) 8192 & 21 & 20.1 & 27.2 & 32.6 & 86.6 & 93.6 \\
10,240 \(\times\) 10,240 & 22.6 & 21.6 & 29.3 & 37.9 & 89.1 & 100.9 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Power Consumption of each experimental platform under Image Calibration Benchmark (unit: W).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Data Length**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Throughput**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Jetson AGX Xavier**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ASUS FL8000**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Loongson Platform**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **CPU (Omp)** & **GPU (Cuda)** & **CPU (Omp)** & **GPU (Cuda)** & **CPU (Omp)** & **GPU (Cuda)** \\ \hline
1,048,576 & 82.44 & 101.42 & 36.09 & 23.40 & 4.51 & 190.23 \\
4,194,304 & 77.43 & 111.37 & 30.36 & 20.76 & 3.91 & 265.05 \\
16,777,216 & 77.21 & 114.32 & 26.50 & 18.79 & 3.30 & 337.07 \\
67,108,864 & 76.74 & 117.38 & 25.16 & & 3.32 & 407.02 \\
104,857,600 & 76.55 & 117.34 & 24.28 & & 3.30 & 397.66 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Throughput of each experimental platform under AES Encryption Algorithm Benchmark (unit: Mbytes/s).  
Figure 7: A comparison of the throughput computation results in Mpixels/s for the image calibration benchmarks executed on the three experimental platforms, where (**a**) is the OpenMP framework and (**b**) is the CUDA framework, computed by averaging the entire processing pipeline over 20 iterations.  
According to the results shown in Tables 7 and 8, during the benchmark testing of the AES encryption algorithm, it can be observed that for the OpenMP framework, the throughput of the Jetson AGX Xavier platform is 23 times higher than that of the Loongson platform when the encryption data size is 16,777,216 bytes. On the other hand, for the CUDA framework, the Loongson platform exhibits the highest throughput, with a throughput that is 3.5 times higher than that of the AGX Xavier experimental platform when the encryption data size is 67,108,864 bytes; however, the power is also 6.7 times that of the Jetson. A more visual comparison is illustrated in Figure 8.