Power Modeling for Heterogeneous Processors
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
As power becomes an ever more important design consideration, there is a need for accurate power models at all stages of the design process. While power models are available for CPUs and GPUs, only simple models are available for heterogeneous processors. We present a micro-benchmark-based modeling technique that can be used for chip multiprocessor (CMPs) and accelerated processing units (APUs). We use our approach to model power on an Intel Xeon CPU and an AMD Fusion heterogeneous processor. The resulting error rate for the Xeon's model is below 3% and is only 7% for the Fusion. We also present a method to reduce the number of benchmarks required to create these models. Instead of running micro-benchmarks for every combination of factors (e.g. different operations or memory access patterns), we cluster similar micro-benchmarks to avoid unnecessary simulations. We show that it is possible to eliminate as many as 93% of the compute micro-benchmarks, while still producing power models having less than 10% error rate.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it