Supercomputer performance: the theory, practice, and results
Advances in computers
Performance comparison of the Cray-2 and Cray X-MP/416 supercomputers
Proceedings of the 1988 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing
Vectorized Monte Carlo molecular aerodynamics simulation of the Reyleigh problem
Proceedings of the 1988 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing
Proceedings of the 1990 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing
The performance realities of massively parallel processors: a case study
Proceedings of the 1992 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing
Evaluation of mechanisms for fine-grained parallel programs in the J-machine and the CM-5
ISCA '93 Proceedings of the 20th annual international symposium on computer architecture
Experiences with compiler-directed storage reclamation
FPCA '93 Proceedings of the conference on Functional programming languages and computer architecture
Reactive synchronization algorithms for multiprocessors
ASPLOS VI Proceedings of the sixth international conference on Architectural support for programming languages and operating systems
How much non-strictness do lenient programs require?
FPCA '95 Proceedings of the seventh international conference on Functional programming languages and computer architecture
HPCC'05 Proceedings of the First international conference on High Performance Computing and Communications
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Fully vectorized versions of the Los Alamos National Laboratory benchmark code Gamteb, a Monte Carlo photon transport algorithm, were developed for the Cyber 205/ETA-10 and Cray X-MP/Y-MP architectures. Single-processor performance measurements of the vector and scalar implementations were modeled in a modified Amdahl's Law that accounts for additional data motion in the vector code. The performance and implementation strategy of the vector codes are related to architectural features of each machine. Speedups between fifteen and eighteen for Cyber 205/ETA-10 architectures, and about nine for CRAY X-MP/Y-MP architectures are observed. The best single processor execution time for the problem was 0.33 seconds on the ETA-10G, and 0.42 seconds on the CRAY Y-MP.