Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!emory!hubcap!gc
From: gc@sp12.csrd.uiuc.edu (George Cybenko)
Newsgroups: comp.parallel
Subject: Re: SLALOM Benchmark (Was FLOPS-data)
Message-ID: <12384@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 90 15:15:04 GMT
References: <12330@hubcap.clemson.edu> <12367@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Sender: fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Lines: 29
Approved: parallel@hubcap.clemson.edu

carter@iastate.edu (Carter Michael Brannon) writes:
>In article <12330@hubcap.clemson.edu Bernard Bauer writes:
>> I want to build up a short clear table with informations about the fastest
>> processors/machines (in comparison with parallel systems). I haven't found
>> any comparable overview until now.

>     I have just what you're looking for!  ....

The PERFECT Benchmark data (obtainable by sending email to
Cathy Warmbier - warmbier@csrd.uiuc.edu) is another possible source
of numbers.  There is data about virtually all supercomputers of the
1980's and a new Fujitsu/Siemens model (no NEC SX3 numbers yet though).
There are performance figures for each of 13 codes in the benchmark
suite (fluid dynamics, seismic migration, circuit simulation, etc)
but you are on your own when trying to reduce the data to a single
number for each machine because of anomolies (rankings of machines
based on different codes are different).  The SLALOM approach
is novel and meaningful if you are doing radiosity problems but
what does it tell you about structural mechanics or molecular
dynamics applications performance?

That's the problem with trying to reduce performance down to one number.
It's more complicated than that.


George Cybenko
Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
University of Illinois at Urbana
gc@csrd.uiuc.edu   (217) 244-4145