|
|
|
|
— |
ai_timelines:computing_hardware_performance_data_collections [2022/09/21 07:37] (current)
|
| | ====== Computing hardware performance data collections ====== |
| | |
| | // Published 26 October, 2017; last updated 27 October, 2017 // |
| | |
| | <HTML> |
| | <p>This is a list of public datasets that we know of containing either measured or theoretical performance numbers for computer processors.</p> |
| | </HTML> |
| | |
| | |
| | ===== List ===== |
| | |
| | |
| | <HTML> |
| | <ol> |
| | <li><div class="li"><strong><a href="https://www.top500.org/lists/2017/06/">Top 500</a></strong> maintains a list of the top 500 supercomputers, updated every six months. It includes measured performance.</div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units"><strong>List of Nvidia Graphics Processing Units</strong></a> contains GFLOPS figures for a large number of GPUs. Probably they are all theoretical peak performance numbers. It also contains release dates and release prices. |
| | </div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"><strong><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units">List of AMD Graphics Processing Units</a></strong> is much like the list of Nvidia GPUs, but for the other leading GPU brand.</div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS#Hardware_costs"><strong>Wikipedia’s FLOPS page</strong></a> contains a small amount of data, seemingly empirical, from a variety of sources. |
| | </div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <strong>Wikipedia</strong> has other small collections of theoretical performance data. For instance on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon_Phi">Intel Xeon Phi</a> page. |
| | </div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <a href="ftp://netuno.io.usp.br/los/IOF257/moravec.pdf"><strong>Moravec</strong></a> has perhaps the oldest and best known dataset. We link to an article discussing it, but its actual page was down last we checked. |
| | </div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <a href="http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/prog_083001a.pdf"><strong>Nordhaus</strong></a> expands on Moravec’s data. |
| | </div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <a href="http://web.mit.edu/cmagee/www/documents/15-koh_magee-tfsc_functional_approach_studying_technological_progress_vol73p1061-1083_2006.pdf"><strong>Koh and Magee</strong></a> expand on Moravec’s data. |
| | </div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <strong>Rieber and Muehlhauser</strong> did have a dataset (discussed <a href="https://intelligence.org/2014/05/12/exponential-and-non-exponential/#footnote_7_11027">here</a>) but links to it appear to be broken. |
| | </div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <a href="http://www.jcmit.com/cpu-performance.htm"><strong>John McCallum’s</strong></a> dataset (doesn’t load at time of writing, but is discussed in <a href="http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf">Sandberg and Bostrom 2008</a> and on our page on <a href="/doku.php?id=ai_timelines:trends_in_the_cost_of_computing">trends in the cost of computing</a>) |
| | </div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <a href="https://www.cpubenchmark.net/"><strong>Passmark</strong></a> has a huge quantity of empirical performance data, for CPUs and GPUs. However it is all in terms of their own benchmark, so hard to compare to other things. They also list current prices. Looking at it over time (via <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20120409044931/https://www.cpubenchmark.net">archive.org</a>) can let you also see past prices. Doing so suggests that they change their benchmarks on occasion, which makes it even harder to interpret what they mean. |
| | </div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <a href="https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/singlecore"><strong>Geekbench Browser</strong></a> collects empirical performance data from people testing their computers with Geekbench’s service. They list many benchmark numbers for many computers. However identically named benchmark figures from ‘Geekbench v4’ vs. ‘Geekbench v3’ for the same hardware differ a lot (one of us recollects about a factor of five), apparently because they changed what the benchmark actually was then. This suggests care should be taken to use numbers from the same version of Geekbench, and also that any version is not necessarily comparable to other apparently identical measures from elsewhere. We are also not sure whether differences in benchmark meaning only occur between saliently labeled versions. |
| | </div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <a href="https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005755/processors.html"><strong>Export compliance metrics for Intel Processors</strong></a> is a collection of PDFs listing processors alongside a number for ‘FLOP’, which we suppose is related to FLOPS. It does not contain much explanation, and has some worrying characteristics.<span class="easy-footnote-margin-adjust" id="easy-footnote-1-1016"></span><span class="easy-footnote"><a href="#easy-footnote-bottom-1-1016" title="Multiple different processors from different times have identical &#8216;FLOP&#8217; numbers, and the overall trend of these numbers over time does not appear to be very downward. They are also quite different from some other numbers for the same processors, but we haven&#8217;t checked this very thoroughly."><sup>1</sup></a></span> |
| | </div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <a href="https://github.com/karlrupp/cpu-gpu-mic-comparison"><strong>Karl Rupp</strong></a> has collected some data and made it available. He has also blogged about it <a href="https://www.karlrupp.net/2013/06/cpu-gpu-and-mic-hardware-characteristics-over-time/">here</a> and <a href="https://www.karlrupp.net/2016/08/flops-per-cycle-for-cpus-gpus-and-xeon-phis/">here</a>. However he says he got it from a combination of the Intel compliance metrics (listed above), and the list of Intel Xeon Microprocessors (below), and a) the export compliance metrics data seems strange, and b) we couldn’t actually track down his data in those sources. Possibly we are misunderstanding the export compliance metrics, and he is interpreting them correctly, resolving both problems. |
| | </div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <a href="https://asteroidsathome.net/boinc/cpu_list.php"><strong>Asteroids@home</strong></a> lists Whetstone benchmark GFLOPS per core by CPU model for computers participating in their project. |
| | </div></li> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <strong>The <a href="https://www.microway.com/knowledge-center-articles/categories/performance/">Microway knowledge center</a></strong> has a lot of pages containing at least some theoretical peak performance numbers (see any called ‘<a href="https://www.microway.com/knowledge-center-articles/detailed-specifications-of-the-intel-xeon-e5-2600v4-broadwell-ep-processors/">detailed specifications of —</a>‘, but most of the numbers on each page are inside figures, and so hard to export or read in detail. |
| | </div></li> |
| | </ol> |
| | </HTML> |
| | |
| | |
| | ==== Other useful hardware data ==== |
| | |
| | |
| | <HTML> |
| | <ul> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors"><strong>List of Intel Xeon Microprocessors</strong></a> does not include figures for FLOPS, but has price and release date data. |
| | </div></li> |
| | </ul> |
| | </HTML> |
| | |
| | |
| | <HTML> |
| | <ol class="easy-footnotes-wrapper"> |
| | <li><div class="li"> |
| | <span class="easy-footnote-margin-adjust" id="easy-footnote-bottom-1-1016"></span>Multiple different processors from different times have identical ‘FLOP’ numbers, and the overall trend of these numbers over time does not appear to be very downward. They are also quite different from some other numbers for the same processors, but we haven’t checked this very thoroughly.<a class="easy-footnote-to-top" href="#easy-footnote-1-1016"></a> |
| | </div></li> |
| | </ol> |
| | </HTML> |
| | |
| | |
| |
