You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: docs/documentation/expectedPerformance.md
+4-4Lines changed: 4 additions & 4 deletions
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@ Similar performance is also seen for other problem configurations, such as the E
18
18
All results are for the compiler that gave the best performance.
19
19
Note:
20
20
* CPU results may be performed on CPUs with more cores than reported in the table; we report results for the best performance given the full processor die by checking the performance for different core counts on that device. CPU results are the best performance we achieved using a single socket (or die).
21
-
These are reported as (X/Y cores), where X is the used cores, and Y is the total on the die.
22
21
* GPU results are for a single GPU device. For single-precision (SP) GPUs, we performed computation in double-precision via conversion in compiler/software; these numbers are _not_ for single-precision computation. AMD MI250X and MI300A GPUs have multiple compute dies per socket; we report results for one _GCD_* for the MI250X and the entire APU (6 XCDs) for MI300A, though one can quickly estimate full device runtime by dividing the grind time number by the number of GCDs on the device (the MI250X has 2 GCDs). We gratefully acknowledge the permission of LLNL, HPE/Cray, and AMD for permission to release MI300A performance numbers.
23
22
24
23
| Hardware | Details | Type | Usage | Grind Time [ns]| Compiler | Computer |
@@ -38,7 +37,7 @@ These are reported as (X/Y cores), where X is the used cores, and Y is the total
0 commit comments