Great, let me know if you end up implementing any of these changes and I will gladly help test.
I'll keep looking around for other thoughts and let you know about bugs. Matt On Aug 12, 2014 9:09 AM, "Namik Karovic" <namik.karo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > > 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. > > > Thanks for bringing that up. It's another reason to make benchmark > modes independent. The basic mode would use the default, unchangeable > benchmark settings that would help compare one's result with other results. > It wouldn't be a fair comparison if you could tweak your basic mode > settings to get better results, now would it? > > > 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. > > > That would be fantastic! > > > 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. > > > The matrix it currently uses is 50 by 50 ( I was doing some testing and > forgot to increase it back to a larger value ). > > Using multiple sizes for a single run could be a good idea. > > > Regards, Namik > > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Matthew Musto <matthew.mu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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
