Hi, I wouldn't trust the power model. Garnet is based on Orion, which in the last year a few papers have shown to be quite inaccurate (mostly because its internal model doesn't scale some technology parameters properly).
More Information: 1. Peh's group recently announced a more accurate power modeling tool called DSENT (https://sites.google.com/site/mitdsent/). In their paper they highlight many issues with Orion and (at the 45nm node) find it capable of being off by ~10x in power. 2. I published a WDDD paper on Orion showing my own brief investigation into why its power/area numbers seemed disconnected with reality. ( http://www.ece.wisc.edu/~hayenga/papers/wddd2012_hayenga.pdf) Hope this helps. Maybe the version of Orion integrated with Ruby/gem5 has received some updates, but unless you've heard otherwise, I wouldn't trust it. On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Mitch Hayenga <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi, > > I wouldn't trust the power model. Garnet is based on Orion, which in the > last year a few papers have shown to be quite inaccurate (mostly because > its internal model doesn't scale some technology parameters properly). > > More Information: > 1. Peh's group recently announced a more accurate power modeling tool > called DSENT (https://sites.google.com/site/mitdsent/). In their paper > they highlight many issues with Orion and (at the 45nm node) find it > capable of being off by ~10x in power. > > 2. I published a WDDD paper on Orion showing my own brief investigation > into why its power/area numbers seemed disconnected with reality. ( > http://www.ece.wisc.edu/~hayenga/papers/wddd2012_hayenga.pdf) > > Hope this helps. Maybe the version of Orion integrated with Ruby/gem5 > has received some updates, but unless you've heard otherwise, I wouldn't > trust it. > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Pavan Poluri <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I have executed the Blackscholes application of the PARSEC benchmark >> suite with 16 threads on the input file set (in_4.txt) with a full system >> simulation with 16 cores, 16 L2 caches and 16 directories on a mesh >> topology with 4 rows. I have used the MOESI_CMP_directory protocol. The >> technology used is 90nm with a clock frequency of 1GHz and operating >> voltage VDD of 1.2V. I was going through the power statistics in the >> ruby.stats file. The following are the power numbers from the simulation. >> >> Router Dynamic Power = 0.00710691 W => 0.4441 mW per router >> Router Static Power = 0.452366 W => 28.272 mW per router >> Router Clock Power = 0.541901 W >> >> I am confused with these power numbers. The dynamic power is very very >> less compared to the static power. I do not understand why the dynamic >> power is so low even when the simulation resulted in the injection of >> 75,899,868 flits and the successful reception of 75,899,865 flits. Am I >> doing something wrong with the simulation? Do I need to set some parameters >> for the power calculations? >> >> Thanks for your time. >> >> Thanks, >> Pavan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gem5-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >> > > > > -- > Mitch Hayenga > [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
