Ignore:
Timestamp:
Apr 8, 2011, 2:46:06 PM (8 years ago)
Author:
ksherdy
Message:

Update macros \CI3 to \CITHREE

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • docs/PACT2011/06-scalability.tex

    r1078 r1079  
    11\section{Scalability}
    22\subsection{Performance}
    3 Figure \ref{Scalability} (a) shows the performance of Parabix2 on three different cores: \CO{}, \CI3\ and \SB{}.
     3Figure \ref{Scalability} (a) shows the performance of Parabix2 on three different cores: \CO{}, \CITHREE\ and \SB{}.
    44The average processing time of the five workloads, which is evaluated as CPU cycles per thousand bytes,
    55is divided up by bitstream parsing and byte space postprocessing.
    66Bitstream parsing, which mainly consists of SIMD instructions,
    7 is able to achieve 17\% performance improvement moving from \CO\ to \CI3{};
    8 22\% performance improvement moving from \CI3\ to \SB{},
     7is able to achieve 17\% performance improvement moving from \CO\ to \CITHREE{};
     822\% performance improvement moving from \CITHREE\ to \SB{},
    99which is relatively stable compared to postprocessing,
    10 which gains 18\% to 31\% performance moving from \CO\ to \CI3{};
    11 0 to 17\% performance improvement moving from \CI3\ to \SB{}.
     10which gains 18\% to 31\% performance moving from \CO\ to \CITHREE{};
     110 to 17\% performance improvement moving from \CITHREE\ to \SB{}.
    1212
    1313As comparison, we also measured the performance of Expat on all the three cores, which is shown is Figure \ref{Scalability} (b).
    14 The performance improvement is less than 5\% by running Expat on \CI3\ instead of \CO\
    15 and it is less than 10\% by running on \SB\ instead of \CI3{}.
     14The performance improvement is less than 5\% by running Expat on \CITHREE\ instead of \CO\
     15and it is less than 10\% by running on \SB\ instead of \CITHREE{}.
    1616
    1717Parabix2 scales much better than Expat and is able to achieve an overall performance improvement
     
    3535
    3636The newer processors are not only designed to have better performance but also more energy-efficient.
    37 Figure \ref{power_Parabix2} shows the average power when running Parabix2 on \CO{}, \CI3\ and \SB\ with different input files.
    38 On \CO{}, the average power is about 32 watts. \CI3\ saves 30\% of the power compared with \CO{}.
    39 \SB\ saves 25\% of the power compared with \CI3\ and consumes only 15 watts.
     37Figure \ref{power_Parabix2} shows the average power when running Parabix2 on \CO{}, \CITHREE\ and \SB\ with different input files.
     38On \CO{}, the average power is about 32 watts. \CITHREE\ saves 30\% of the power compared with \CO{}.
     39\SB\ saves 25\% of the power compared with \CITHREE\ and consumes only 15 watts.
    4040
    4141The energy consumption is further improved by better performance, which means a shorter processing time, as we moved to the newer cores.
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.