Hi, Thanks a lot for your detailed reply.
Thanks, Pavan On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Mitch Hayenga < mitch.hayenga+g...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I wouldn't trust the power model. Garnet is based on Orion, which in the > last year a few papers have shown to be quite inaccurate (mostly because > its internal model doesn't scale some technology parameters properly). > > More Information: > 1. Peh's group recently announced a more accurate power modeling tool > called DSENT (https://sites.google.com/site/mitdsent/). In their paper > they highlight many issues with Orion and (at the 45nm node) find it > capable of being off by ~10x in power. > > 2. I published a WDDD paper on Orion showing my own brief investigation > into why its power/area numbers seemed disconnected with reality. ( > http://www.ece.wisc.edu/~hayenga/papers/wddd2012_hayenga.pdf) > > Hope this helps. Maybe the version of Orion integrated with Ruby/gem5 has > received some updates, but unless you've heard otherwise, I wouldn't trust > it. > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Mitch Hayenga > <mitch.haye...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I wouldn't trust the power model. Garnet is based on Orion, which in the >> last year a few papers have shown to be quite inaccurate (mostly because >> its internal model doesn't scale some technology parameters properly). >> >> More Information: >> 1. Peh's group recently announced a more accurate power modeling tool >> called DSENT (https://sites.google.com/site/mitdsent/). In their paper >> they highlight many issues with Orion and (at the 45nm node) find it >> capable of being off by ~10x in power. >> >> 2. I published a WDDD paper on Orion showing my own brief investigation >> into why its power/area numbers seemed disconnected with reality. ( >> http://www.ece.wisc.edu/~hayenga/papers/wddd2012_hayenga.pdf) >> >> Hope this helps. Maybe the version of Orion integrated with Ruby/gem5 >> has received some updates, but unless you've heard otherwise, I wouldn't >> trust it. >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Pavan Poluri <poluripa...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I have executed the Blackscholes application of the PARSEC benchmark >>> suite with 16 threads on the input file set (in_4.txt) with a full system >>> simulation with 16 cores, 16 L2 caches and 16 directories on a mesh >>> topology with 4 rows. I have used the MOESI_CMP_directory protocol. The >>> technology used is 90nm with a clock frequency of 1GHz and operating >>> voltage VDD of 1.2V. I was going through the power statistics in the >>> ruby.stats file. The following are the power numbers from the simulation. >>> >>> Router Dynamic Power = 0.00710691 W => 0.4441 mW per router >>> Router Static Power = 0.452366 W => 28.272 mW per router >>> Router Clock Power = 0.541901 W >>> >>> I am confused with these power numbers. The dynamic power is very very >>> less compared to the static power. I do not understand why the dynamic >>> power is so low even when the simulation resulted in the injection of >>> 75,899,868 flits and the successful reception of 75,899,865 flits. Am I >>> doing something wrong with the simulation? Do I need to set some parameters >>> for the power calculations? >>> >>> Thanks for your time. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Pavan >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gem5-users mailing list >>> gem5-users@gem5.org >>> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mitch Hayenga >> mitch.haye...@gmail.com >> > > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-users mailing list > gem5-users@gem5.org > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >
_______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list gem5-users@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
