MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155382325 · doi:10.1109/iiswc.2009.5306782

Evaluation of the Intel® Core™ i7 Turbo Boost feature

2009· article· en· W2155382325 on OpenAlexaff
James Charles, Preet Jassi, Narayan S. Ananth, Abbas Sadat, Alexandra Fedorova

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurboComputer scienceEnergy consumptionTurbo codeMulti-core processorPower consumptionWorkloadTurbo generatorPower (physics)Parallel computingReal-time computingOperating systemElectrical engineeringDecoding methodsAlgorithmEngineeringAutomotive engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Intel® Core™ i7 processor code named Nehalem has a novel feature called Turbo Boost which dynamically varies the frequencies of the processor's cores. The frequency of a core is determined by core temperature, the number of active cores, the estimated power and the estimated current consumption. We perform an extensive analysis of the Turbo Boost technology to characterize its behavior in varying workload conditions. In particular, we analyze how the activation of Turbo Boost is affected by inherent properties of applications (i.e., their rate of memory accesses) and by the overall load imposed on the processor. Furthermore, we analyze the capability of Turbo Boost to mitigate Amdahl's law by accelerating sequential phases of parallel applications. Finally, we estimate the impact of the Turbo Boost technology on the overall energy consumption. We found that Turbo Boost can provide (on average) up to a 6% reduction in execution time but can result in an increase in energy consumption up to 16%. Our results also indicate that Turbo Boost sets the processor to operate at maximum frequency (where it has the potential to provide the maximum gain in performance) when the mapping of threads to hardware contexts is sub-optimal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations135
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207