Also, on some end, you can expect inorder to be slower than o3 because o3 is naturally a faster CPU (architecturally).
O3 committing more instructions per cycle (8 by default for o3?) so if you are comparing CPUs for the same amount of instructions that would not necessarily be a good comparison if you are talking about raw simulation performance. Rather, if you are comparing raw performance you should compare how long does it take each CPU to maybe complete the same amount of cycles. A good sanity check might be to look at the results from the regression tests. In the "tests" directory, you can look at the "stats.txt" file for each regression and you'll see the committed values for simulation cycles and simulation time. Comparing those across the CPU models should give you a good perspective. On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM, soumyaroop roy<[email protected]> wrote: > Hello there, > > The performance of M5 in simulating an inorder-timing CPU seems to be > significantly lower than that in simulating an o3-timing CPU (0.33X for gzip > for 10 M instructions) in their default configurations. Does that sound > correct? I would expect it to be the other way around unless, of course, > there are differences in their implementations which affects the > performance. I am using the Alpha ISA in SE mode. > > regards, > Soumyaroop. > > -- > Soumyaroop Roy > Ph.D. Candidate > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > University of South Florida, Tampa > http://www.csee.usf.edu/~sroy > _______________________________________________ > m5-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users > -- - Korey _______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
