Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern processors aim to achieve ILP by utilizing numerous functional units, large on-chip structures and wider issue windows. This leads to extremely complex designs, which in turn adversely affect clock rate. Hence, clustered processors have been introduced as an alternative, which allow high levels of ILP while maintaining a desirable clock rate. Nonetheless, clustering has its drawbacks. In this paper we discuss the two types of clustering-induced delays caused by limited intra-cluster issue bandwidth and inter-cluster communication latencies. We use simulation results to show that the stalls caused by inter-cluster communication delays are the dominant factor impeding the performance of clustered processors. We also use a set of models to illustrate how much performance could be improved if each type of delay was eliminated. Finally we show that as the issue width grows, or the number of clusters increases, effects of inter-cluster communication delays intensify severely while stalls caused by limited issue width remain insignificant in comparison. Our findings show that further improving the performance of current clustered processors may not be possible unless more advanced cluster assignment techniques are developed that minimize communication across clusters.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".