1st MangoPi MQ Quad Comparisons!

by Bret
Published: Last Updated on 26 minutes read

A bit later than I hoped, the MangoPi MQ Quad has arrived and I’ve put it through my usual set of tests so we can see how it compares to its nearest and dearest.

The MangoPi MQ Quad is a tiny Allwinner-based Single Board Computer in the Raspberry Pi Zero W form factor. Packed with an Allwinner H616 Quad-Core Cortex A53 CPU at 1.5GHz, it’s much more powerful than their previous “Zero” board, the MangoPi MQ Pro (MPI-MQ1PH).

If you’re interested in a longer-form benchmark/review piece on the MQ Quad on its own, do check out my full MangoPi MQ Quad Review once you’re done here.

Whilst we’ll be comparing 5 boards in this piece (Raspberry Pi Zero 2, Radxa Zero, BananaPi M2 Zero, OrangePi Zero 2, and the MangoPi MQ Quad) the interesting comparison will be with the OrangePi Zero 2 as they share the same Allwinner H616 SoC. When it comes to the CPU features/performance we’ll likely be seeing very similar performance but when it comes to things like WiFi, SD Card performance, and temperatures/power draws, how will it fare?

MQ Quad Specifications

Taking a quick look over the MQ Quad’s specifications before we dive into the results, we can see that it shares the same WiFi/Bluetooth chip as the MangoPi MQ Pro so I expect to see similar performance on that front.

It has a set of pogo pins for additional connections (this also means I’ll be adding it to my recent MCUZone USB/Ethernet hat piece for comparison!) and these include 5V, GND (x2), DP, DM, and G/R/L audio pins.

CPUH616 Quad-Core 1.5GHz Cortex A53
OpenGL 3.2 / Vulkan 1.1
ConnectivityTL8723DS 802.11 b/g/n (2.4GHz) WLAN
u.FL Antenna Connector (antenna included!)
 USB-C OTG (1)
 Mini HDMI (1)
 18-pin MISC FFC connection (USB, Ethernet, GPIO)
 microSD Card Slot
 40-pin Raspberry Pi compatible GPIO header
 Audio via audio out pads
PowerAXP313 Power Management
USB-C (5v)
via GPIO Header & POGO Pin
Dimensions 65x30mm (Length x Height)

MQ Quad Compute Performance

We have a range of SoCs in the lineup here and 5 different Single Board Computer manufacturers. Whilst as I say, the OrangePi and MangoPi share the same SoC, they are in slightly different form factors (the MQ Quad being an actual “Zero” form factor) so that and the other hardware differences will make this a great comparison!

Raspberry Pi Zero 2 WRP3A0-AU ARMv8 Cortex-A53 @ 1.00GHz (4 Cores)
Radxa ZeroS905Y2 ARMv8 Cortex-A53 @ 1.80GHz (4 Cores)
BananaPi M2 ZeroH3 ARMv7 Cortex-A7 @ 1.01GHz (4 Cores)
Orange Pi Zero 2H616 ARMv8 Cortex-A53 @ 1.5GHz (4 Cores)
MangoPi MQ QuadH616 ARMv8 Cortex-A53 @ 1.5GHz (4 Cores)

All testing will be performed on a Debian 11-based image that was initially meant for an OrangePi Zero 2 but modified for the differing hardware. It is running kernel 5.16.17-sun50iw9.


Single-Core Performance

Zero 2 WRadxa ZeroBPI-M2 ZeroOPi Zero 2MQ Quad
Dhrystone 2 using register variables319867314731730
Double-Precision Whetstone187436151365365
Execl Throughput155286122175157
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000242426212447432
File Copy 256 bufsize 500162309157318327
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000465726331752645
Pipe Throughput113364155308310
Pipe-based Context Switching6616184164164
Process Creation110227108141129
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)391662282253481
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)7791314529963833
System Call Overhead326457294408404

Multi-Core Performance

Zero 2 WRadxa ZeroBPI-M2 ZeroOPi Zero 2MQ Quad
Dhrystone 2 using register variables12743477125429222920
Double-Precision Whetstone747174460314601459
Execl Throughput407733274541472
File Copy 1024 bufsize 200040678751111501113
File Copy 256 bufsize 500260511345808821
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000790153875818541409
Pipe Throughput454145561512241231
Pipe-based Context Switching258628353699700
Process Creation298516247389331
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)88814956021085938
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)82613895441007867
System Call Overhead12551784114615751571

Geekbench 5.4.0 AArch64

To prevent massive, unreadable graphs this time I’m including a quick summary of the overall scores shown in the Geekbench 5.4.0 AArch64 results so we can have an overview. As you’ve probably already noticed, there’s a pattern (as to be expected) when it comes to the OrangePi Zero 2 and the MangoPi MQ Quad.

Single-Core Performance

MangoPi MQ Quad Geekbench 5.4 1 CPU Results bret.dk

Multi-Core Performance

MangoPi MQ Quad Geekbench 5.4 4 CPU Results bret.dk 1


MangoPi MQ Quad PHPBench Results bret.dk


MangoPi MQ Quad PyBench Results bret.dk

WavPack Audio Encoding

The BananaPi M2 Zero wouldn’t complete a run of the same WavPack test here, though an older test was completed in 121 seconds.

MangoPi MQ Quad WavPack Audio Encode Results bret.dk


Measured in MiB/s, this is a useful test of each SoC’s cryptographic abilities and whilst the S905Y2 in the Radxa Zero does take the lead in each test, the H616 is not too far behind.

MangoPi MQ Quad Crypto Results bret.dk 1

GZIP Compression

MangoPi MQ Quad GZIP Compression Results bret.dk

Memory (RAM) Performance

The MangoPi MQ Quad packs in 1GB of DDR3 memory which puts it ahead of the Raspberry Pi Zero 2 and BananaPi M2 Zero in that regard, though it’s on par with the OrangePi Zero 2 which is evident here.


MangoPi MQ Quad CacheBench Results bret.dk 1

Geekbench 2.4.2 ARM RAM Tests

MangoPi MQ Quad Geekbench 2.4.2 RAM Results bret.dk
MangoPi MQ Quad Geekbench 2.4.2 Stream Results bret.dk

Networking Performance

When looking at the WiFi performance, the MangoPi MQ Quad puts in a fair performance. All tests were performed with the included WiFi antenna and it results in speeds pretty similar to those seen on the Raspberry Pi Zero 2. The OrangePi Zero 2 does beat it by 30%+ but that’s to be expected with its better WiFi chip.

The included MangoPi WiFi Antenna
MangoPi MQ Quad Networking Results bret.dk

MQ Quad Storage Performance

MicroSD Card Reader

SD Card ModelSequential ReadSequential WriteRandom ReadRandom WriteIOPing
SanDisk Ultra (8GB)12.77 MB/s13.27 MB/s5.47 MB/s0.63 MB/s0.84 ms
SanDisk Ultra (16GB)22.62 MB/s14.6 MB/s6.94 MB/s2.38 MB/s2.62 ms
SanDisk Ultra (32GB)22.63 MB/s18 MB/s7.18 MB/s2.08 MB/s2.65 ms
SanDisk Extreme (64GB)22.65 MB/s22.1 MB/s6.21 MB/s3.48 MB/s0.68 ms
SanDisk Extreme PRO (128GB)22.56 MB/s22.15 MB/s5.37 MB/s3.65 MB/s0.7 ms
Kingston Canvas Select Plus (32GB)11.4 MB/s9.6 MB/s4.97 MB/s1.94 MB/s0.73 ms
KIOXIA EXCERIA (32GB)22.63 MB/s15.4 MB/s9.32 MB/s4.13 MB/s0.65 ms
Samsung EVO Plus (32GB)22.31 MB/s18.6 MB/s6 MB/s1.25 MB/s1.21 ms
Amazon Basics (64GB)22.78 MB/s22.4 MB/s10.05 MB/s4.47 MB/s0.96 ms
Verbatim Premium (16GB)22.61 MB/s11.8 MB/s8.29 MB/s2.38 MB/s0.8 ms
SanDisk MAX ENDURANCE (32GB)22.5 MB/s21.75 MB/s5.97 MB/s3.43 MB/s0.62 ms
Integral ultima PRO (64GB)22.82 MB/s22 MB/s8.81 MB/s3.78 MB/s1.05 ms
Patriot EP Series (64GB)22.63 MB/s19 MB/s7.16 MB/s2.37 MB/s0.71 ms
Kodak (64GB)22.54 MB/s19.6 MB/s3.53 MB/s0.74 MB/s0.78 ms
Intenso (64GB)22.78 MB/s22.05 MB/s9.81 MB/s3.78 MB/s0.95 ms
Transcend (32GB)22.61 MB/s13.3 MB/s8.96 MB/s2.44 MB/s0.59 ms
Samsung EVO Select (32GB)22.51 MB/s19.9 MB/s6.18 MB/s1.14 MB/s1.01 ms
Samsung PRO Plus (128GB)22.58 MB/s20.25 MB/s7.27 MB/s1.16 MB/s0.69 ms
SanDisk HIGH ENDURANCE (64GB)22.42 MB/s21.15 MB/s4.78 MB/s2.5 MB/s0.69 ms
Samsung PRO Endurance (32GB)22.54 MB/s21.1 MB/s6.15 MB/s1.54 MB/s0.78 ms

Average MicroSD Card Speed Comparison

This graph denotes all of the benchmarks combined and then averaged for this particular board, taken from my Best Raspberry Pi SD Cards piece so for an accurate picture of an individual card’s result, the table above will be better. This gives us a good idea of the average performance though and the MangoPi MQ Quad does well across the board.

MangoPi MQ Quad microSD Card Results bret.dk

Thermals & Power

The Allwinner H616 is a warm lil thing and in every test, it’s hotter than its rivals in the lineup. Without any kind of cooling, it does reach quite high temperatures (all tests performed with an ambient temperature of 24.4c) and as a result, it does thermal throttle. At around 75c it dropped to 1.2GHz and at 80c it lowers further to 1GHz. As the temperature then fluctuates slightly above and below 80c it sits there floating between 1GHz and 1.2GHz. We’ll test out the offered heatsink in the full MQ Quad breakdown so make sure to look out for that next week!

MQ Quad Temperatures

MangoPi MQ Quad Temperature Results bret.dk

MQ Quad Power Draw

MangoPi MQ Quad Power Draw Results bret.dk

Final Thoughts

As expected, performance on the computing side of things is almost identical to the Orange Pi Zero 2 and that’s fine as they offer slightly different things beyond the SoC.

For example, if you’re looking for a Pi Zero form factor then the MangoPi MQ Quad is going to be what you want, providing you have the cooling or a lighter workload to go with it.

If you consider the networking capabilities a big thing in your purchasing decision then the OrangePi has onboard 1Gbit ethernet and faster WiFi (it also utilises 5GHz). This may prove useful to those wanting to run latency-specific, or throughput-heavy workloads.

Price-wise, the MQ Quad is going to set you back $25.76 USD for the board alone (plus any shipping/taxes in your region) and an additional $2.80 if you want the heatsink. The Orange Pi Zero 2 is slightly cheaper at $24.91 (they’re running an 11% discount at the time of writing) but offers no option to purchase a heatsink along with it. I did recently test OrangePi Zero heatsinks though so if you’re interested in adding one, do check that out.

Ultimately, the OrangePi Zero 2 is a more feature-rich board, is slightly cheaper, and has better software support (though I feel the MQ Quad will catch up on that front, it’s currently re-purposing OrangePi images!) whilst also offering more performance in certain areas. This was always going to be the case though with the MQ Quad being MangoPi’s first board like this and produced in much smaller quantities.

Which would you buy? Does the Pi Zero form factor sway it for you? Do you not care about the size and just want as many features as possible for the money? Let me know what you think in the comments and also let me know whether you have one of these and what you’re using it for!

You may also like...


Emilio Estefan 12/10/2022 - 05:25

Not Bluetooth support yet, please mention it

Bret 13/10/2022 - 12:13

Hi, Emilio! I didn’t think to mention it in this particular piece as I wasn’t testing Bluetooth functionality but in my upcoming full review of the MQ Quad, I’ll be sure to add this.

Raylynn Knight 16/10/2022 - 09:35

Another advantage the MangoPi boards have is the ability to make use of most of the boards created for use with the Raspberry Pi Zero pogo pins. WaveShare, MCUZone, Geekworm and Makerspot all make one or more boards that use pogo pins and work just fine with the MangoPi MQ Quad and the Mango Pi MQ Pro.

Bret 16/10/2022 - 10:48

Yup! That’s a great addition to these and I’ve enjoyed testing some of those Waveshare and MCUZONE boards. They’re solid little options for getting more I/O!


Leave a Comment