MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108580877 · doi:10.1109/pacrim.1995.519414

Architecture tradeoffs in in reduced instruction set computers: a case study

2002· article· en· W2108580877 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hani Elgebaly, Mostafa Abd‐El‐Barr, Carl McCrosky

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer architectureInstruction setBenchmark (surveying)SuiteArchitectureReduced instruction set computingAddressing modeMicroarchitectureSet (abstract data type)Reference architectureParallel computingOperating systemSoftware architectureProgramming languageCentral processing unitSoftwareInstructions per cycle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major problem facing computer architects is the development of methods and techniques that measure and predict the performance of their architectures. This problem arises also in designing reduced instruction set computers (RISCs). The paper studies the effect of machine instruction set on performance of a subset of RISC architectures. In particular, the study investigates the behavior and performance issues of a minimal VLSI-estate RISC architecture (LDS RISC) designed by the Lambda Digital Synthesis Group in the Department of Computational Science, University of Saskatchewan. The authors address issues in architectural design. Such as register-to-memory architecture versus load/store, instruction frequency distribution, and suitability for pipelining as they apply to the LDS architecture. An instruction simulator and profiler are written for the LDS architecture. Performance statistics are gathered during the run-time of a benchmark suite on the LDS architecture. The authors anticipate that the gathered measurements serve as the knowledge base that can be used by an architect in making detailed design tradeoffs to achieve a better architecture. The proposed modifications aim for less memory references, and faster speed than the original LDS architecture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207