Will the 'basic' run be standard for online reporting? The reason I ask is I think it would be useful to be able to gauge various hardware setups I don't have access to and see where things stack up.
Side note, I can probably get Anandtech.com to use this as a standard benchmark for compute if there is a reproducible standard test which can be produced. Also, if we do go that route, can we use a larger (more difficult) sparse test? It completes in the blink of an eye right now. Might be nice to run a few different matrices so we can see how it scales with size, like the other benchmarks. Thanks, Matt On Aug 12, 2014 4:33 AM, "Karl Rupp" <r...@iue.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > It's actually important to have finer grained data for small vectors, > > and more spaced points as the data grows bigger : this is why it is > > better to choose the sizes according to a a^x law than an a*x one. You > > can experiment other values than 2 for a, if you want. If I were you, > > I'd probably go with something like : > > [int(1.5**x) for x in range(30,45)] > > > > That is, an increment 1.5 factor from ~190,000 to ~55,000,000 > > Hmm, 55M elements is a bit too much for the default mode, it would > exceed the RAM available on a bunch of mobile GPUs. I'd rather suggest > the range ~1k to ~10M elements so that the latency at small vector sizes > is also captured. > > Best regards, > Karli > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > ViennaCL-devel mailing list > ViennaCL-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/viennacl-devel >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ ViennaCL-devel mailing list ViennaCL-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/viennacl-devel
