Avaliação de desempenho e consumo energético para configurações de Wavefront pools de uma GPU AMD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O uso de sistemas heterogêneos CPU-GPU para atender à crescente demanda por aplicações com grande paralelismo de dados resulta na necessidade de estudar e avaliar tais arquiteturas para melhorá-las continuamente. Neste artigo foram feitas simulações da execução de uma suíte de benchmark em uma GPU AMD ATI RadeonTM HD 7970, de modo a avaliar o impacto sobre o desempenho e o consumo energético quando alterado o número de Wavefront Pools presentes em cada compute unit da GPU, que é 4 por padrão. O resultado mais significante evidencia um aumento de velocidade de cerca de 5,7% para a configuração com duas Wavefront Pools em conjunto com um aumento no consumo de energia de cerca de 5,1%. Todavia, as outras configurações avaliadas também representam opções para diferentes tipos de necessidades, conforme a categoria de demanda computacional.Palavras-chave: Sistemas heterogêneos. Simulações. Desempenho.Performance evaluation and energy consumption for settings of Wavefront pools of a GPU AMDAbstractThe use of CPU-GPU heterogeneous systems to meet the growing demand for applications with large data parallelism results in the need to study and evaluate these architectures in order to improve them continuously. In this paper we made simulations of running a benchmark suite on an AMD GPU ATI RadeonTM HD 7970 in order to assess the impact on performance and power consumption when tuning the number of Wavefront Pools present in each GPU compute unit, which is 4 by default. The most significant result shows a speedup of about 5.7% for configuration with two Wavefront Pools in conjunction with an increase of about 5.1% in the energy consumption. However, the other evaluated configuration also represent options for different kinds of needs, according to the computational demand.Keyworks: Heterogeneous systems. Simulation. Performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".