Products > Computers

Best performance per watt

<< < (3/3)

coppice:

--- Quote from: Picuino on January 18, 2024, 04:54:13 pm ---"The ULPMark-CM score is unitless, but is derived from iterations per milli-Joule, divided by 1000."
https://www.eembc.org/ulpmark/ulp-cm/scores.php

In this sense the "iterations" can be simple 8-bit instructions, powerful 64-bit instructions or floating point calculations.
For the case at hand, I would define iteration as 32-bit RISC instruction, which is almost the current standard from microcontrollers to smartphone microprocessors.

You could even refine it further and say that it refers to ARM or similar cores (such as MIPS).

--- End quote ---
You can define iteration however you want, but the ULPMark tests are based on iterations of the ULPMark test code.

radiogeek381:
The biggest problems with the OP, as almost all the replies have pointed out, are the words “Best” and “performance.” 

“Per Watt,” as others have also pointed out, is subject to perspective. All of the perspectives are right, somewhere.

Some datacenter operators look at lots of factors including wall power (kVA out of the socket),  cooling power,  power/rack-unit, and even the cabinet exhaust air temperature and flow. Socket power is irrelevant for them.

As for “performance” and “best” this is generally unanswerable even when we eliminate the “power” part of the question.

There have been attempts at benchmark suites in the HPC part of the industry. The Green500 suite is the one I know of. https://www.top500.org/lists/green500/ This was derived by grownups, but its reliance on the Linpack benchmark.

The Green500 ignores any “special” aspect of the hardware that doesn’t directly contribute to their specific approach to a solution of a linear system. It also focuses on double-precision floating point performance. This leaves out a huge chunk of the HPC industry at this point. On the other hand, it is almost reasonably objective when comparing x86 based systems. The huge investment in Linpack by the intel side of the industry, however, puts most other architectures at a bit of a disadvantage.


Just sayin'

nightfire:
The energy consumption of a CPU is somewhat meaningless without knowledge about the task it shall fulfill, and which other parts in a computer are needed to do so.

In my last company, we did webhosting, and my colleagues did some benchmarks to evaluate new server hardware regarding performance and operating costs- basically the metric was something along the lines of: Number of delivered webpagaes /page impressions per hour and per watt to compare with other models of hardware.

Everything else like synthetic benchmarks will give you some rough idea how some CPU might compare against each other, but the whole ecosystem has to be taken into account.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page