A characterization of the Rodinia benchmark suite with comparison to contemporary CMP workloads
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
The recently released Rodinia benchmark suite enables users to evaluate heterogeneous systems including both accelerators, such as GPUs, and multicore CPUs. As Rodinia sees higher levels of acceptance, it becomes important that researchers understand this new set of benchmarks, especially in how they differ from previous work. In this paper, we present recent extensions to Rodinia and conduct a detailed characterization of the Rodinia benchmarks (including performance results on an NVIDIA GeForce GTX480, the first product released based on the Fermi architecture). We also compare and contrast Rodinia with Parsec to gain insights into the similarities and differences of the two benchmark collections; we apply principal component analysis to analyze the application space coverage of the two suites. Our analysis shows that many of the workloads in Rodinia and Parsec are complementary, capturing different aspects of certain performance metrics.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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