A Systematic Literature Review on Graphics Processing Unit Accelerated Realm of High-Performance Computing
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
GPUs (Graphics Processing Units) are widely used due to their impressive computational power and parallel computing ability.It have shown significant potential in improving the performance of HPC applications. This is due to their highly parallel architecture, which allows for the execution of multiple tasks simultaneously. However, GPU computing is synonymous with CUDA in providing applications for GPU devices. This offers enhanced development tools and comprehensive documentation to increase performance, while AMD’s ROCm platform features an application programming interface compatible with CUDA. Hence, the main objective of the systematic literature review is to thoroughly analyze and compute the performance characteristics of two prominent GPU computing frameworks, namely NVIDIA's CUDA and AMD's ROCm (Radeon Open Compute). By meticulously examining the strengths, weaknesses, and overall performance capabilities of CUDA and ROCm, a deeper understanding of these concepts is gained and will benefit researchers. The purpose of the research on GPU accelerated HPC is to provide a comprehensive and unbiased overview of the current state of research and development in this area. It can help researchers, practitioners, and policymakers understand the role of GPUs in HPC and facilitate evidence-based decision making. In addition, different real-time applications of CUDA and ROCm platforms are also discussed to explore potential performance benefits and trade-offs in leveraging these techniques. The insights provided by the study will empower the way to make well-informed decisions when choosing between CUDA and ROCm approaches that apply to real-world software.
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 | 0.001 | 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