GPGPU performance and power estimation using machine learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) have numerous configuration and design options, including core frequency, number of parallel compute units (CUs), and available memory bandwidth. At many stages of the design process, it is important to estimate how application performance and power are impacted by these options. This paper describes a GPU performance and power estimation model that uses machine learning techniques on measurements from real GPU hardware. The model is trained on a collection of applications that are run at numerous different hardware configurations. From the measured performance and power data, the model learns how applications scale as the GPU's configuration is changed. Hardware performance counter values are then gathered when running a new application on a single GPU configuration. These dynamic counter values are fed into a neural network that predicts which scaling curve from the training data best represents this kernel. This scaling curve is then used to estimate the performance and power of the new application at different GPU configurations. Over an 8× range of the number of CUs, a 3.3× range of core frequencies, and a 2.9× range of memory bandwidth, our model's performance and power estimates are accurate to within 15% and 10% of real hardware, respectively. This is comparable to the accuracy of cycle-level simulators. However, after an initial training phase, our model runs as fast as, or faster than the program running natively on real hardware.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it