DOCSLIB.ORG

Disrupting the Datacenter: Qualcomm Centriq™ 2400 Processor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Disrupting the datacenter: Qualcomm Centriq™ 2400 Processor November 8, 2017 Safe Harbor This presentation by Qualcomm Incorporated and its indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. (“QDT”), contains forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause Qualcomm Incorporated’s or QDT’s actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Neither Qualcomm Incorporated nor QDT undertakes any obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements in order to reflect any event or circumstance that may arise after the date of this presentation and each entity reserves the right to revise their respective product roadmaps at any time for any reason without notice. Any third-party statements included in the presentation are not made by either Qualcomm Incorporated or QDT, but instead by such third parties themselves and neither Qualcomm Incorporated nor QDT has any responsibility in connection therewith. 2 Transforming our world Technology leadership in advanced computing, connectivity, security, and systems design 3 Inventing technologies that fuel innovation Long history of anticipating big industry challenges and developing system-level solutions to solve them 4 5G will power a new cloud and connectivity paradigm Enhanced mobile Mission-critical Massive Internet broadband services of Things A unified connectivity platform facilitating distributed intelligence between cloud and device 5 Automotive High performance at Distributed intelligence leading process nodes Computing drives new requirements 5G for high speed, low latency connectivity Networking Intelligence distributed Low power, efficient, integrated computing platforms from cloud to device Media consumption Optimized machine Utilizing our technology Industrial IoT learning leadership to drive innovation at scale across industries Comprehensive Smart homes security 6 Arm vs x86: Architectural footprint X86 Arm 2005 2006 2007 2008 100B+ 2009 Arm-based chips have shipped since 1991 2010 2011 Expect next 100B to ship by 2021 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 7 Structural trends driving tectonic shift in the data center Cloud Manufacturing process 8 A new world in datacenter— cloud Monolithic Worldwide cloud IT Scale-out architecture infrastructure shifts to cloud* architecture 100% Cloud 50% Traditional enterprise IT Then Now On-premise Revenue Server Datacenter % Total 0% Cloud distributed Centralized system 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 system 9 A new world in datacenter— manufacturing process 305M 294M 280M PC Global PC vs. Smartphone shipments units units units Smartphone 1.3B 1.4B 1.5B units units units 219M 230M 269M units units units 56M 82M 124M Then units units units Now Fab process technology Fab process technology driven by PC driven by mobile phones 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 10 A new world in datacenter— manufacturing process 305M 294M 280M PC 350 250 180 130 90 65 45 32 22 units units units Smartphone nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm 1.3B 1.4B 1.5B units units units 219M 230M 269M units units units 56M 82M 124M ~2 year Then units units units scale) (Log density* Defect Now Fab process technology Fab process technology driven by PC driven by mobile phones 2005 2006 2007 2014 2015 2016 11 A new world in datacenter— manufacturing process 65nm 45nm 28nm 20nm 14nm 10nm Mobile driven 1st in the industry PC driven 45nm 32nm 22nm 14nm 10nm Then Now Fab process technology Fab process technology driven by PC driven by mobile phones 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 12 Qualcomm Centriq™ 2400 Disrupting the datacenter Processor 13 Reimagining the datacenter Process technology leadership Built for the cloud Open ecosystem Custom design expertise Industry’s first and only 10nm server processor. 14 Innovative design on leading edge node “Samsung's 10nm process technology with specific optimizations for high performance, combined with QDT’s + = leading-edge custom SoC design, allow us to deliver a world-class server processor that will disrupt the datacenter market.” World Industry leading ES Jung, President and GM, Foundry class design process node Business, Samsung Electronics 15 Benefits of leading Better performance, power, area edge node Transistor speed Higher performance Transistor density Lower cost Transistor power Higher perf/Watt 16 Qualcomm Centriq™ 2400 Now shipping for revenue* 17 Industry is shifting to the cloud 100% Cloud 75% 50% Traditional 25% enterprise IT 0% % Total datacenter revenue server datacenter % Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 18 Cloud software trends Infrastructure Platform Software and services services API services Cloud native Applications increasingly decoupled from ISA applications Monolithic Microservices, Multi-threaded SW containerized SW Scale out Portable 19 What cloud means for processor architecture Qualcomm Centriq™ Throughput performance Key metrics Thread density • Perf / thread Quality of service • Perf / Watt 2400 Energy efficiency • Perf / $ 20 DDR DDR DDR Qualcomm Centriq 2400: Built for cloud MC MC MC 8 - ® L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 Serdes Serdes - SATACTL 8 Qualcomm Large cache ™ PCle EMAC Falkor CPU Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor • 64 KB L1 instruction cache with 24 KB duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex HDMA 8 - Serdes single-cycle L0 cache OCMEM • 5th-generation custom core design Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex QGIC • 2.2 GHz base frequency, 2.6 GHz peak* • 512 KB L2 per duplex USB USB USB USB • Arm v8-compliant • 60 MB unified L3 cache Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor 8 - duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex Serdes QFPROM • AArch64 only Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor PCle IMC duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex Bi-directional multi-ring Coherent segmented ring interconnect 8 - Serdes High core count • Fully coherent MPM/CC L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 • >250GB/s aggregate bandwidth PW • Up to 48 single-thread CPU cores MC MC MC DDR DDR DDR 21 DDR DDR DDR Qualcomm Centriq 2400: Built for cloud MC MC MC 8 - L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 Serdes Serdes - SATACTL 8 Highly integrated SoC Security PCle EMAC • Distributed architecture Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor • Immutable root of trust duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex HDMA 8 - Serdes • Single chip platform-level solution • EL3 (TrustZone) and EL2 (hypervisor) OCMEM Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex • Arm SBSA Level 3-compliant QGIC USB USB USB USB Cloud workload enhancers Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor 8 - duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex Serdes QFPROM High memory BW • Inline memory bandwidth compression Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor PCle IMC duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex • 6 Channels of DDR4 2667 MT/s • Cache Quality of Service Coherent segmented ring interconnect 8 - • Up to 768 GB of memory Serdes MPM/CC L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 • 128 GB/s peak aggregate BW Integrated chipset PW MC MC MC Low power • 32 PCIe Gen3 lanes with 6 PCIe controllers DDR DDR DDR • Low speed IO; integrated management controller • Up to 120W TDP 22 DDR DDR DDR Qualcomm Centriq 2400: Built for cloud MC MC MC 8 - L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 Serdes Serdes - SATACTL 8 • 48 physical 2.6 GHz custom cores with large cache PCle EMAC Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex HDMA 8 - Serdes • High bandwidth coherent ring OCMEM Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex QGIC USB USB • Constant peak frequency USB USB Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor 8 - duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex Serdes QFPROM Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor Falkor • Cache quality of service PCle IMC duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex duplex Coherent segmented ring interconnect 8 - Serdes MPM/CC • Inline memory bandwidth compression L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 PW MC MC MC • Security rooted in hardware DDR DDR DDR • Leading performance and power efficiency 23 Qualcomm Centriq 7% better performance 13% better 657 Qualcomm Centriq 2460 613 607 48 cores / 48 threads leadership 534 120W TDP Intel Xeon Platinum 8160 24 cores / 48 threads 150W TDP SPECint®_rate2006 estimate* SPECfp®_rate2006 estimate* 24 Comparative SKU lineup Intel Xeon — Top bin Platinum, Gold, Silver SKUs* SKU Core Count L3 Cache Frequency Power SKU Core Count L3 Cache Frequency Power (base and turbo** freq) (TDP) (base and peak** freq) (TDP) Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 28 38.5 MB 2.5 / 3.8 GHz 205W Qualcomm Centriq 2460 48 60 MB 2.2 / 2.6 GHz 120W Intel Xeon Gold 6152 22 30.25 MB 2.1 / 3.7 GHz 140W Qualcomm Centriq 2452 46 57.5 MB 2.2 / 2.6 GHz 120W Intel Xeon Silver 4116 12 16.5 MB 2.1 / 3.0 GHz 85W Qualcomm Centriq 2434 40 50 MB 2.3 / 2.5 GHz 110W 25 Qualcomm Centriq ~Parity 8% better 4% better performance Qualcomm 13.9 13.7 13.8 13.6 14.1 Centriq 12.8 leadership Intel Xeon SPECint®_rate2006 Estimate per Thread per Estimate SPECint®_rate2006 Qualcomm Centriq 2460 120W TDP Qualcomm Centriq 2452 120W TDP Qualcomm Centriq 2434 110W TDP vs. vs. vs. Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 205W TDP* Intel Xeon Gold 6152 140W TDP* Intel Xeon Silver 4116 85W TDP* 26 Qualcomm Centriq 45% better 32% better 31% better 5.5 5.3 Qualcomm performance 5.1 Centriq 4.0 Intel Xeon leadership 3.8 3.9 SPECint®_rate2006 Estimate per TDP W TDP per Estimate SPECint®_rate2006 Qualcomm Centriq 2460 120W TDP Qualcomm Centriq 2452 120W TDP Qualcomm Centriq 2434 110W TDP vs. vs. vs. Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 205W TDP* Intel Xeon Gold 6152 140W TDP* Intel Xeon Silver 4116 85W TDP* 27 120W TDP Qualcomm Centriq 120 energy efficiency 100 ) 80 s Median = 65W Watt ( 60 Power Power 40 20 8W idle power 0 400.
Recommended publications
  • Memory Centric Characterization and Analysis of SPEC CPU2017 Suite

    Memory Centric Characterization and Analysis of SPEC CPU2017 Suite

    Session 11: Performance Analysis and Simulation ICPE ’19, April 7–11, 2019, Mumbai, India Memory Centric Characterization and Analysis of SPEC CPU2017 Suite Sarabjeet Singh Manu Awasthi [email protected] [email protected] Ashoka University Ashoka University ABSTRACT These benchmarks have become the standard for any researcher or In this paper, we provide a comprehensive, memory-centric charac- commercial entity wishing to benchmark their architecture or for terization of the SPEC CPU2017 benchmark suite, using a number of exploring new designs. mechanisms including dynamic binary instrumentation, measure- The latest offering of SPEC CPU suite, SPEC CPU2017, was re- ments on native hardware using hardware performance counters leased in June 2017 [8]. SPEC CPU2017 retains a number of bench- and operating system based tools. marks from previous iterations but has also added many new ones We present a number of results including working set sizes, mem- to reflect the changing nature of applications. Some recent stud- ory capacity consumption and memory bandwidth utilization of ies [21, 24] have already started characterizing the behavior of various workloads. Our experiments reveal that, on the x86_64 ISA, SPEC CPU2017 applications, looking for potential optimizations to SPEC CPU2017 workloads execute a significant number of mem- system architectures. ory related instructions, with approximately 50% of all dynamic In recent years the memory hierarchy, from the caches, all the instructions requiring memory accesses. We also show that there is way to main memory, has become a first class citizen of computer a large variation in the memory footprint and bandwidth utilization system design.
  • Overview of the SPEC Benchmarks

    Overview of the SPEC Benchmarks

    9 Overview of the SPEC Benchmarks Kaivalya M. Dixit IBM Corporation “The reputation of current benchmarketing claims regarding system performance is on par with the promises made by politicians during elections.” Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC) was founded in October, 1988, by Apollo, Hewlett-Packard,MIPS Computer Systems and SUN Microsystems in cooperation with E. E. Times. SPEC is a nonprofit consortium of 22 major computer vendors whose common goals are “to provide the industry with a realistic yardstick to measure the performance of advanced computer systems” and to educate consumers about the performance of vendors’ products. SPEC creates, maintains, distributes, and endorses a standardized set of application-oriented programs to be used as benchmarks. 489 490 CHAPTER 9 Overview of the SPEC Benchmarks 9.1 Historical Perspective Traditional benchmarks have failed to characterize the system performance of modern computer systems. Some of those benchmarks measure component-level performance, and some of the measurements are routinely published as system performance. Historically, vendors have characterized the performances of their systems in a variety of confusing metrics. In part, the confusion is due to a lack of credible performance information, agreement, and leadership among competing vendors. Many vendors characterize system performance in millions of instructions per second (MIPS) and millions of floating-point operations per second (MFLOPS). All instructions, however, are not equal. Since CISC machine instructions usually accomplish a lot more than those of RISC machines, comparing the instructions of a CISC machine and a RISC machine is similar to comparing Latin and Greek. 9.1.1 Simple CPU Benchmarks Truth in benchmarking is an oxymoron because vendors use benchmarks for marketing purposes.
  • 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 2 MIPS Arithmetic Logic Unit (ALU) Zero Ovf

    3 — Arithmetic for Computers 2 MIPS Arithmetic Logic Unit (ALU) Zero Ovf

    Chapter 3 Arithmetic for Computers 1 § 3.1Introduction Arithmetic for Computers Operations on integers Addition and subtraction Multiplication and division Dealing with overflow Floating-point real numbers Representation and operations Rechnerstrukturen 182.092 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 2 MIPS Arithmetic Logic Unit (ALU) zero ovf 1 Must support the Arithmetic/Logic 1 operations of the ISA A 32 add, addi, addiu, addu ALU result sub, subu 32 mult, multu, div, divu B 32 sqrt 4 and, andi, nor, or, ori, xor, xori m (operation) beq, bne, slt, slti, sltiu, sltu With special handling for sign extend – addi, addiu, slti, sltiu zero extend – andi, ori, xori overflow detection – add, addi, sub Rechnerstrukturen 182.092 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 3 (Simplyfied) 1-bit MIPS ALU AND, OR, ADD, SLT Rechnerstrukturen 182.092 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 4 Final 32-bit ALU Rechnerstrukturen 182.092 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 5 Performance issues Critical path of n-bit ripple-carry adder is n*CP CarryIn0 A0 1-bit result0 ALU B0 CarryOut0 CarryIn1 A1 1-bit result1 B ALU 1 CarryOut 1 CarryIn2 A2 1-bit result2 ALU B2 CarryOut CarryIn 2 3 A3 1-bit result3 ALU B3 CarryOut3 Design trick – throw hardware at it (Carry Lookahead) Rechnerstrukturen 182.092 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 6 Carry Lookahead Logic (4 bit adder) LS 283 Rechnerstrukturen 182.092 3 — Arithmetic for Computers 7 § 3.2 Addition and Subtraction 3.2 Integer Addition Example: 7 + 6 Overflow if result out of range Adding +ve and –ve operands, no overflow Adding two +ve operands
  • Asustek Computer Inc.: Asus P6T

    Asustek Computer Inc.: Asus P6T

    SPEC CFP2006 Result spec Copyright 2006-2014 Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (Test Sponsor: Intel Corporation) SPECfp 2006 = 32.4 Asus P6T Deluxe (Intel Core i7-950) SPECfp_base2006 = 30.6 CPU2006 license: 13 Test date: Oct-2008 Test sponsor: Intel Corporation Hardware Availability: Jun-2009 Tested by: Intel Corporation Software Availability: Nov-2008 0 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 30.0 33.0 36.0 39.0 42.0 45.0 48.0 51.0 54.0 57.0 60.0 63.0 66.0 71.0 70.7 410.bwaves 70.8 21.5 416.gamess 16.8 34.6 433.milc 34.8 434.zeusmp 33.8 20.9 435.gromacs 20.6 60.8 436.cactusADM 61.0 437.leslie3d 31.3 17.6 444.namd 17.4 26.4 447.dealII 23.3 28.5 450.soplex 27.9 34.0 453.povray 26.6 24.4 454.calculix 20.5 38.7 459.GemsFDTD 37.8 24.9 465.tonto 22.3 470.lbm 50.2 30.9 481.wrf 30.9 42.1 482.sphinx3 41.3 SPECfp_base2006 = 30.6 SPECfp2006 = 32.4 Hardware Software CPU Name: Intel Core i7-950 Operating System: Windows Vista Ultimate w/ SP1 (64-bit) CPU Characteristics: Intel Turbo Boost Technology up to 3.33 GHz Compiler: Intel C++ Compiler Professional 11.0 for IA32 CPU MHz: 3066 Build 20080930 Package ID: w_cproc_p_11.0.054 Intel Visual Fortran Compiler Professional 11.0 FPU: Integrated for IA32 CPU(s) enabled: 4 cores, 1 chip, 4 cores/chip, 2 threads/core Build 20080930 Package ID: w_cprof_p_11.0.054 CPU(s) orderable: 1 chip Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 (for libraries) Primary Cache: 32 KB I + 32 KB D on chip per core Auto Parallel: Yes Secondary Cache: 256 KB I+D on chip per core File System: NTFS Continued on next page Continued on next page Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation [email protected] Page 1 http://www.spec.org/ SPEC CFP2006 Result spec Copyright 2006-2014 Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation ASUSTeK Computer Inc.
  • Modeling and Analyzing CPU Power and Performance: Metrics, Methods, and Abstractions

    Modeling and Analyzing CPU Power and Performance: Metrics, Methods, and Abstractions

    Modeling and Analyzing CPU Power and Performance: Metrics, Methods, and Abstractions Margaret Martonosi David Brooks Pradip Bose VET NOV TES TAM EN TVM DE I VI GE T SV B NV M I NE Moore’s Law & Power Dissipation... Moore’s Law: ❚ The Good News: 2X Transistor counts every 18 months ❚ The Bad News: To get the performance improvements we’re accustomed to, CPU Power consumption will increase exponentially too... (Graphs courtesy of Fred Pollack, Intel) Why worry about power dissipation? Battery life Thermal issues: affect cooling, packaging, reliability, timing Environment Hitting the wall… ❚ Battery technology ❚ ❙ Linear improvements, nowhere Past: near the exponential power ❙ Power important for increases we’ve seen laptops, cell phones ❚ Cooling techniques ❚ Present: ❙ Air-cooled is reaching limits ❙ Power a Critical, Universal ❙ Fans often undesirable (noise, design constraint even for weight, expense) very high-end chips ❙ $1 per chip per Watt when ❚ operating in the >40W realm Circuits and process scaling can no longer solve all power ❙ Water-cooled ?!? problems. ❚ Environment ❙ SYSTEMS must also be ❙ US EPA: 10% of current electricity usage in US is directly due to power-aware desktop computers ❙ Architecture, OS, compilers ❙ Increasing fast. And doesn’t count embedded systems, Printers, UPS backup? Power: The Basics ❚ Dynamic power vs. Static power vs. short-circuit power ❙ “switching” power ❙ “leakage” power ❙ Dynamic power dominates, but static power increasing in importance ❙ Trends in each ❚ Static power: steady, per-cycle energy cost ❚ Dynamic power: power dissipation due to capacitance charging at transitions from 0->1 and 1->0 ❚ Short-circuit power: power due to brief short-circuit current during transitions.
  • Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone?

    Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone?

    Continuous Profiling: Where Have All the Cycles Gone? JENNIFER M. ANDERSON, LANCE M. BERC, JEFFREY DEAN, SANJAY GHEMAWAT, MONIKA R. HENZINGER, SHUN-TAK A. LEUNG, RICHARD L. SITES, MARK T. VANDEVOORDE, CARL A. WALDSPURGER, and WILLIAM E. WEIHL Digital Equipment Corporation This article describes the Digital Continuous Profiling Infrastructure, a sampling-based profiling system designed to run continuously on production systems. The system supports multiprocessors, works on unmodified executables, and collects profiles for entire systems, including user programs, shared libraries, and the operating system kernel. Samples are collected at a high rate (over 5200 samples/sec. per 333MHz processor), yet with low overhead (1–3% slowdown for most workloads). Analysis tools supplied with the profiling system use the sample data to produce a precise and accurate accounting, down to the level of pipeline stalls incurred by individual instructions, of where time is being spent. When instructions incur stalls, the tools identify possible reasons, such as cache misses, branch mispredictions, and functional unit contention. The fine-grained instruction-level analysis guides users and automated optimizers to the causes of performance problems and provides important insights for fixing them. Categories and Subject Descriptors: C.4 [Computer Systems Organization]: Performance of Systems; D.2.2 [Software Engineering]: Tools and Techniques—profiling tools; D.2.6 [Pro- gramming Languages]: Programming Environments—performance monitoring; D.4 [Oper- ating Systems]: General; D.4.7 [Operating Systems]: Organization and Design; D.4.8 [Operating Systems]: Performance General Terms: Performance Additional Key Words and Phrases: Profiling, performance understanding, program analysis, performance-monitoring hardware An earlier version of this article appeared at the 16th ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles (SOSP), St.
  • Specfp Benchmark Disclosure

    Specfp Benchmark Disclosure

    SPEC CFP2006 Result Copyright 2006-2016 Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation Cisco Systems SPECfp2006 = Not Run Cisco UCS C220 M4 (Intel Xeon E5-2667 v4, 3.20 GHz) SPECfp_base2006 = 125 CPU2006 license: 9019 Test date: Mar-2016 Test sponsor: Cisco Systems Hardware Availability: Mar-2016 Tested by: Cisco Systems Software Availability: Dec-2015 0 30.0 60.0 90.0 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660 690 720 750 780 810 840 900 410.bwaves 572 416.gamess 43.1 433.milc 72.5 434.zeusmp 225 435.gromacs 63.4 436.cactusADM 894 437.leslie3d 427 444.namd 31.6 447.dealII 67.6 450.soplex 48.3 453.povray 62.2 454.calculix 61.6 459.GemsFDTD 242 465.tonto 52.1 470.lbm 799 481.wrf 120 482.sphinx3 91.6 SPECfp_base2006 = 125 Hardware Software CPU Name: Intel Xeon E5-2667 v4 Operating System: SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP1 (x86_64) CPU Characteristics: Intel Turbo Boost Technology up to 3.60 GHz 3.12.49-11-default CPU MHz: 3200 Compiler: C/C++: Version 16.0.0.101 of Intel C++ Studio XE for Linux; FPU: Integrated Fortran: Version 16.0.0.101 of Intel Fortran CPU(s) enabled: 16 cores, 2 chips, 8 cores/chip Studio XE for Linux CPU(s) orderable: 1,2 chips Auto Parallel: Yes Primary Cache: 32 KB I + 32 KB D on chip per core File System: xfs Secondary Cache: 256 MB I+D on chip per core System State: Run level 3 (multi-user) Continued on next page Continued on next page Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation [email protected] Page 1 http://www.spec.org/ SPEC CFP2006 Result Copyright 2006-2016 Standard Performance
  • Intel Corporation: Lenovo T400 (Intel Core 2 Duo T9900)

    Intel Corporation: Lenovo T400 (Intel Core 2 Duo T9900)

    SPEC CFP2006 Result spec Copyright 2006-2014 Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation Intel Corporation SPECfp2006 = 21.2 Lenovo T400 (Intel Core 2 Duo T9900) SPECfp_base2006 = 20.5 CPU2006 license: 13 Test date: Mar-2009 Test sponsor: Intel Corporation Hardware Availability: Mar-2009 Tested by: Intel Corporation Software Availability: Nov-2008 0 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 27.0 29.0 32.0 27.6 410.bwaves 27.6 19.9 416.gamess 19.1 18.8 433.milc 18.8 434.zeusmp 24.1 19.7 435.gromacs 19.3 30.7 436.cactusADM 30.0 437.leslie3d 17.5 16.2 444.namd 16.2 24.5 447.dealII 22.1 17.1 450.soplex 16.9 30.4 453.povray 24.3 20.0 454.calculix 20.0 16.3 459.GemsFDTD 16.5 19.2 465.tonto 17.5 470.lbm 15.3 21.2 481.wrf 21.2 30.8 482.sphinx3 31.0 SPECfp_base2006 = 20.5 SPECfp2006 = 21.2 Hardware Software CPU Name: Intel Core 2 Duo T9900 Operating System: Windows XP Professional w/ SP2 (64-bit) CPU Characteristics: Compiler: Intel C++ Compiler Professional 11.0 for IA32 CPU MHz: 3066 Build 20080930 Package ID: w_cproc_p_11.0.054 Intel Visual Fortran Compiler Professional 11.0 FPU: Integrated for IA32 CPU(s) enabled: 2 cores, 1 chip, 2 cores/chip Build 20080930 Package ID: w_cprof_p_11.0.054 CPU(s) orderable: 1 chip Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 (for libraries) Primary Cache: 32 KB I + 32 KB D on chip per core Auto Parallel: Yes Secondary Cache: 6 MB I+D on chip per chip File System: NTFS Continued on next page Continued on next page Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation [email protected] Page 1 http://www.spec.org/
  • Historical Perspective and Further Reading 4.7

    Historical Perspective and Further Reading 4.7

    4.7 Historical Perspective and Further Reading 4.7 From the earliest days of computing, designers have specified performance goals—ENIAC was to be 1000 times faster than the Harvard Mark-I, and the IBM Stretch (7030) was to be 100 times faster than the fastest computer then in exist- ence. What wasn’t clear, though, was how this performance was to be measured. The original measure of performance was the time required to perform an individual operation, such as addition. Since most instructions took the same exe- cution time, the timing of one was the same as the others. As the execution times of instructions in a computer became more diverse, however, the time required for one operation was no longer useful for comparisons. To take these differences into account, an instruction mix was calculated by mea- suring the relative frequency of instructions in a computer across many programs. Multiplying the time for each instruction by its weight in the mix gave the user the average instruction execution time. (If measured in clock cycles, average instruction execution time is the same as average CPI.) Since instruction sets were similar, this was a more precise comparison than add times. From average instruction execution time, then, it was only a small step to MIPS. MIPS had the virtue of being easy to understand; hence it grew in popularity. The In More Depth section on this CD dis- cusses other definitions of MIPS, as well as its relatives MOPS and FLOPS! The Quest for an Average Program As processors were becoming more sophisticated and relied on memory hierar- chies (the topic of Chapter 7) and pipelining (the topic of Chapter 6), a single exe- cution time for each instruction no longer existed; neither execution time nor MIPS, therefore, could be calculated from the instruction mix and the manual.
  • An Evaluation of the TRIPS Computer System

    An Evaluation of the TRIPS Computer System

    Appears in the Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Architecture Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems An Evaluation of the TRIPS Computer System Mark Gebhart Bertrand A. Maher Katherine E. Coons Jeff Diamond Paul Gratz Mario Marino Nitya Ranganathan Behnam Robatmili Aaron Smith James Burrill Stephen W. Keckler Doug Burger Kathryn S. McKinley Department of Computer Sciences The University of Texas at Austin [email protected] www.cs.utexas.edu/users/cart Abstract issue-width scaling of conventional superscalar architec- The TRIPS system employs a new instruction set architec- tures. Because of these trends, major microprocessor ven- ture (ISA) called Explicit Data Graph Execution (EDGE) dors have abandoned architectures for single-thread perfor- that renegotiates the boundary between hardware and soft- mance and turned to the promise of multiple cores per chip. ware to expose and exploit concurrency. EDGE ISAs use a While many applications can exploit multicore systems, this block-atomic execution model in which blocks are composed approach places substantial burdens on programmers to par- of dataflow instructions. The goal of the TRIPS design is allelize their codes. Despite these trends, Amdahl’s law dic- to mine concurrency for high performance while tolerating tates that single-thread performance will remain key to the emerging technology scaling challenges, such as increas- future success of computer systems [9]. ing wire delays and power consumption. This paper eval- In response to semiconductor scaling trends, we designed uates how well TRIPS meets this goal through a detailed a new architecture and microarchitecture intended to extend ISA and performance analysis.
  • Dell Inc.: Poweredge T610 (Intel Xeon X5690, 3.46 Ghz)

    Dell Inc.: Poweredge T610 (Intel Xeon X5690, 3.46 Ghz)

    SPEC CFP2006 Result spec Copyright 2006-2014 Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation Dell Inc. SPECfp2006 = 64.6 PowerEdge T610 (Intel Xeon X5690, 3.46 GHz) SPECfp_base2006 = 60.3 CPU2006 license: 55 Test date: Jun-2011 Test sponsor: Dell Inc. Hardware Availability: Feb-2011 Tested by: Dell Inc. Software Availability: Apr-2011 0 10.0 25.0 40.0 55.0 70.0 85.0 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 305 410.bwaves 180 31.0 416.gamess 26.2 57.4 433.milc 57.1 434.zeusmp 121 26.0 435.gromacs 24.5 436.cactusADM 301 437.leslie3d 104 22.2 444.namd 21.7 447.dealII 44.8 450.soplex 35.5 43.7 453.povray 34.7 37.1 454.calculix 32.9 91.8 459.GemsFDTD 77.6 37.1 465.tonto 27.7 470.lbm 293 481.wrf 51.2 64.8 482.sphinx3 58.5 SPECfp_base2006 = 60.3 SPECfp2006 = 64.6 Hardware Software CPU Name: Intel Xeon X5690 Operating System: SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 SP1 (x86_64), CPU Characteristics: Intel Turbo Boost Technology up to 3.73 GHz Kernel 2.6.32.12-0.7-default CPU MHz: 3467 Compiler: Intel C++ and Fortran Intel 64 Compiler XE for FPU: Integrated applications running on Intel 64 Version 12.0 Update 3 CPU(s) enabled: 12 cores, 2 chips, 6 cores/chip Auto Parallel: Yes CPU(s) orderable: 1,2 chips File System: ext3 Primary Cache: 32 KB I + 32 KB D on chip per core System State: Run level 3 (multi-user) Secondary Cache: 256 KB I+D on chip per core Base Pointers: 64-bit Continued on next page Continued on next page Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation [email protected] Page 1 http://www.spec.org/ SPEC CFP2006 Result spec Copyright 2006-2014 Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation Dell Inc.
  • A Lightweight Processor Benchmark Mark Claypool Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Claypool@Wpi.Edu

    A Lightweight Processor Benchmark Mark Claypool Worcester Polytechnic Institute, [email protected]

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DigitalCommons@WPI Worcester Polytechnic Institute DigitalCommons@WPI Computer Science Faculty Publications Department of Computer Science 7-1-1998 Touchstone - A Lightweight Processor Benchmark Mark Claypool Worcester Polytechnic Institute, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/computerscience-pubs Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Suggested Citation Claypool, Mark (1998). Touchstone - A Lightweight Processor Benchmark. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/computerscience-pubs/206 This Other is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Computer Science at DigitalCommons@WPI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Computer Science Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WPI. WPI-CS-TR-98-16 July 1998 Touchstone { A Lightweight Pro cessor Benchmark by Mark Claypool Computer Science Technical Rep ort Series WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE Computer Science Department 100 Institute Road, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609-2280 Touchstone { A Lightweight Pro cessor Benchmark Mark Claypool [email protected] Worcester Polytechnic Institute Computer Science Department August 11, 1998 Abstract Benchmarks are valuable for comparing pro cessor p erformance. However, p orting and run- ning pro cessor b enchmarks on new platforms can b e dicult. Touchstone, a simple addition b enchmark, is designed to overcome p ortability problems, while retaining p erformance measure- ment accuracy. In this pap er, we present exp erimental results that showTouchstone correlates strongly with pro cessor p erformance under other b enchmarks. Equally imp ortant, we presenta measure of p ortability that demonstrates Touchstone is easier to p ort and run than other b ench- marks.