<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.11" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What Drives Performance in HPC?</title>
	<link>http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4170/</link>
	<description>Open Source, Open Standards</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:25:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: atekhasski</title>
		<link>http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4170/#comment-1166</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:18:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4170/#comment-1166</guid>
					<description>Wow! Thank you, Ted, for the token of recognition! As I see, P.Emma [1] has expressed similar sentiment (to which I arrived independently and two years later :-( ):

&lt;i&gt;"First, the most popular performance metric, IPC (instructions per cycle), is the reciprocal of the metric that should be used, CPI (cycles per instruction).  This is primarily because CPI is a simple dot product of a few numbers that any experienced designer should have at his fingertips. It is intuitive, and it makes for remarkably quick and remarkably accurate estimates."&lt;/i&gt;,
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/413/emma.pdf
(it's easier to read).

For those who might be interested, the original Powerpoint of the 1999 SPEC Workshop presentation can found here: http://home.austin.rr.com/bah/SPECworkshop/frame.htm
There is a populistic paper on the subject on my website http://home.austin.rr.com/bah/index.htm
and also several examples which were intended to illustrate usefulness of the scaling approach in "time-domain" coordinates. 
Thanks again for the nice article.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow! Thank you, Ted, for the token of recognition! As I see, P.Emma [1] has expressed similar sentiment (to which I arrived independently and two years later :-( ):</p>
<p><i>&#8220;First, the most popular performance metric, IPC (instructions per cycle), is the reciprocal of the metric that should be used, CPI (cycles per instruction).  This is primarily because CPI is a simple dot product of a few numbers that any experienced designer should have at his fingertips. It is intuitive, and it makes for remarkably quick and remarkably accurate estimates.&#8221;</i>,<br />
<a href="http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/413/emma.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/413/emma.pdf</a><br />
(it&#8217;s easier to read).</p>
<p>For those who might be interested, the original Powerpoint of the 1999 SPEC Workshop presentation can found here: <a href="http://home.austin.rr.com/bah/SPECworkshop/frame.htm" rel="nofollow">http://home.austin.rr.com/bah/SPECworkshop/frame.htm</a><br />
There is a populistic paper on the subject on my website <a href="http://home.austin.rr.com/bah/index.htm" rel="nofollow">http://home.austin.rr.com/bah/index.htm</a><br />
and also several examples which were intended to illustrate usefulness of the scaling approach in &#8220;time-domain&#8221; coordinates.<br />
Thanks again for the nice article.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
