So I just got my Up2 (Ultimate level) Board. Figured I'd give some comparisons between the two... Udoo x86 Advanced, (4GB RAM, 1.6ghz, boosts to 2.06) UP2 Ultimate (8GB RAM, 1.1Ghz Boosts to 2.5) (so, yes it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison since I didn't have the Udoo x86 Ultra) and RasPi3 just for comparison sake... ASUS Tinkerboard Sysbench CPU Test: Code: #total time (in seconds, lower is better) Udoo: 57.7303 Up2: 20.2966 RPi3: 477.2538 Tinker: 291.772 #per request min (in ms, lower is better) Udoo: 5.77 UP2: 2.01 RPi3: 47.7 Tinker: 29.16 #per request max (in ms, lower is better) Udoo: 16.68 UP2: 6.98 RPi3: 70.93 Tinker: 39.85 #95 percentile (in ms, lower is better) Udoo: 5.78 UP2: 2.1 RPi3: 47.76 Tinker: 29.19 So, as expected the UP2 was faster. Given that they're using a 6 month and 1 generation newer processor, and I got the highest end version of it vs the mid-range Udoo, I would expect it to win there. Tinkerboard is substantially faster than the RPi3 even though it's 32 bit vs 64, (the faster clock speed and 2x the RAM doesn't hurt!) Sysbench IO: (run against a 8GB test file set) (Note, Udoo scores were running against the M.2 SSD, Up2 against it's built in 128GB eMMC, RPi3 a 2GB fileset on it's SD card, Tinker was against a 4GB fileset on it's SD card) Code: # of events Udoo: 319400 UP2: 631000 RPi3: 70400 Tinker: 20300 #Total Time taken by event execution (in seconds, lower is better) #(Remember, RPi3 and Tinker were against smaller sample files due to drive space limitations) Udoo: 53.0795 Up2: 70.0625 RPi3: 48.0444 Tinker: 21.0481 #per request min: Udoo: 0.01 UP2: 0 RPi3: 0.02 Tinker: 0.02 #avg: Udoo: 0.17 Up2: 0.11 RPi3: 0.68 Tinker: 1.04 #max Udoo: 7.23 Up2: 14.26 RPi3: 136.17 Tinker: 286.43 #95th percentile Udoo: 0.41 Up2: 0.49 RPi3: 1.57 Tinker: 2.37 So in this case it apprears the Udoo with it's M.2 has better IO performance. Both utterly kill the RPi3. I'm pretty sure something is wrong with the Tinkerboard. They've been putting out different OS versions, but seems like they're FAR from hitting the performance specs they claim in terms of IO here.. GLMark2: (Just going to give the overall scores here) Code: Udoo: 982 Up2: 1026 RPi3: (Couldn't get this to run with hardware acceleration, so pointless to give the score) Tinker: (couldn't get this to run at all! They REALLY need to work on the OS badly...) I consider those to be within margin of error. The Up2 scored better in some tests, worse in others. Pretty much a wash. Now, one thing I did find interesting - in the EFI/BIOS for the UP, there's specific settings for the Burst mode in the chips. I know there's been a lot of talk about that on the Udoo and whether we're actually ever seeing the advertised high end burst speeds. I wonder if there's something that has to be enabled BIOS-wise that Udoo is missing, (or maybe it's there and it's just not exposed for us to access?) the 2x CPU performance really makes me think that something on the Udoo isn't going right though for it to lose by that much when the base clock speeds favor the Udoo by almost 50%. It makes me wonder if the Up2 is getting to use it's Burst mode up to 2.5, while the Udoo is stuck at 1.6? All this being said, they are both really nice boards. Personally I prefer the Udoo's Arduino pinout vs the Up2's RasPi style GPIO. I also like that the Udoo has more options for storage interfaces, I think it just makes the board more versatile. I'm NOT a fan of the Up2's HUGE heatsink and the fact that they put the CPU on the bottom of the board forcing you to run it flipped over, plus the heatsink is covering all but 1 of the mounting holes. Hopefully they offer a smaller HS+fan option soon.