Ignore:
Timestamp:
Aug 25, 2011, 1:56:51 PM (8 years ago)
Author:
ashriram
Message:

Done evaluation

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • docs/HPCA2012/05-corei3.tex

    r1378 r1380  
    147147requires less than a single cycle per byte.
    148148
    149 \begin{figure}[b]
    150 \subfigure[Instruction Breakdown (\% SIMD Instructions)]{
    151 \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{plots/corei3_INS_p2.pdf}
     149\begin{figure}[htbp]
     150\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
     151\centering
     152\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{plots/corei3_INS_p2.pdf}
     153\caption{Instruction Breakdown (\% SIMD Instructions)}
    152154\label{corei3_INS_p2}
    153 }
     155\end{minipage}%
    154156\hfill
    155 \subfigure[Performance (CPU Cycles per kB)]{
    156 \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{plots/corei3_TOT.pdf}
     157\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
     158\centering
     159\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{plots/corei3_TOT.pdf}
     160\caption{Performance (CPU Cycles per kB)}
    157161\label{corei3_TOT}
    158 }
    159 \end{figure}
     162\end{minipage}
     163\end{figure}
     164
    160165
    161166
    162167\subsection{Power and Energy}
    163 In this section, we study the power and energy consumption of Parabix in
    164 comparison with Expat and Xerces on \CITHREE{}. The average power of
    165 \CITHREE\ is about 21 watts. Figure \ref{corei3_power} shows the
     168In this section, we study the power and energy consumption of Parabix
     169in comparison with Expat and Xerces on \CITHREE{}. The average power
     170of \CITHREE\ is about 21 watts. Figure \ref{corei3_power} shows the
    166171average power consumed by each parser.  Parabix, dominated by SIMD
    167172instructions which uses approximately 5\% additional power. While the
     
    171176pipeline. More importantly by using data parallel operations Parabix
    172177amortizes the fetch and data access overheads. This results in minimal
    173 power increase compared to the conventional parsers. 
    174 Perhaps the energy trends shown in Figure
    175 \ref{corei3_energy} reveal an interesting trend. Parabix consumes
    176 substantially less energy than the other parsers. Parabix consumes 50
    177 to 75 nJ per byte while Expat and Xerces consume 80nJ to 320nJ and
    178 140nJ to 370nJ per byte respectively.  Although Parabix
    179 requires slightly more power (per instruction), the processing time of
    180 Parabix is significantly lower.
     178power increase compared to the conventional parsers.  Perhaps the
     179energy trends shown in Figure \ref{corei3_energy} reveal an
     180interesting trend. Parabix consumes substantially less energy than the
     181other parsers. Parabix consumes 50 to 75 nJ per byte while Expat and
     182Xerces consume 80nJ to 320nJ and 140nJ to 370nJ per byte respectively.
     183Although Parabix requires slightly more power (per instruction), the
     184processing time of Parabix is significantly lower.
    181185
    182186
     
    195199\label{corei3_energy}
    196200}
    197 \end{figure}
    198 
    199 
     201\caption{Power profile of Parabix on \CITHREE{}}
     202\end{figure}
     203
     204
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.