Comparing performance, productivity and scalability of the TILT overlay processor to OpenCL HLS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-Level-Synthesis (HLS) tools translate a software description of an application into custom FPGA logic, increasing designer productivity vs. Hardware Description Language (HDL) design flows. Overlays seek to further improve productivity by reducing application compile times and raising abstraction by enabling the designer to target a software-programmable substrate instead of the underlying FPGA. We compare the performance, development effort and scalability of two C-to-FPGA approaches: our TILT overlay processor and Altera's OpenCL HLS. Our application-customized TILT implementations of five data-parallel benchmarks have from 41 % to 80% of the throughput per unit of layout area achieved by our best OpenCL HLS designs. The time required for initial hardware compilation of these TILT designs and configuration of the target application onto the overlay is roughly comparable to the compile times of the OpenCL HLS designs: 28 and 103 minutes on average respectively. However subsequent reconfigurations due to changes in the application that do not require re-synthesis of the overlay are fast, taking 38 seconds on average. In contrast, OpenCL HLS applications require full recompilation after every code change. TILT also enables smaller, more area-efficient designs than OpenCL HLS when low to moderate throughput is sufficient. For high throughput, the larger spatially pipelined designs of OpenCL HLS are preferable.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".