From WikiChip
Editing coremark-mhz

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

This page supports semantic in-text annotations (e.g. "[[Is specified as::World Heritage Site]]") to build structured and queryable content provided by Semantic MediaWiki. For a comprehensive description on how to use annotations or the #ask parser function, please have a look at the getting started, in-text annotation, or inline queries help pages.

Latest revision Your text
Line 5: Line 5:
 
'''CoreMark/MHz''' is a measurement of [[single thread performance]] per [[clock frequency]]. The number is based on the [[CoreMark]] [[benchmark]] score. It is obtained by taking the single-core [[CoreMark]] number and dividing it by the [[clock speed]] used when the benchmark is performed.
 
'''CoreMark/MHz''' is a measurement of [[single thread performance]] per [[clock frequency]]. The number is based on the [[CoreMark]] [[benchmark]] score. It is obtained by taking the single-core [[CoreMark]] number and dividing it by the [[clock speed]] used when the benchmark is performed.
  
While CoreMark is a relatively simple benchmark that addresses some of the deficiencies with [[Dhrystone]], it has been designed around embedded applications and therefore demonstrates highly favorable numbers for relatively simple designs (e.g., [[dual-issue]] [[in-order]]) while having weaker performance scaling in complex designs (e.g., [[out-of-order]] [[superscalar]]). Therefore it may sometimes show that a very well-design in-order core achieves >80% of the performance of very complex high-performance OoO cores while real-world applications will demonstratively show significantly bigger gaps and discrepancies. Additionally, since the score is normalized by [[clock frequency]], it cannot be used to derived absolute performances. Furthermore, since it's possible to achieve higher CoreMark at considerably lower frequency through well-known techniques such as shortening the pipeline which saves a significant amount of silicon, using CoreMark/MHz per unit area to derive area-efficiency is problematic.
+
While CoreMark is a relatively simple benchmark that addresses some of the deficiencies with [[Dhrystone]], it has been designed around embedded applications and therefore demonstrates highly favorable numbers for relatively simple designs (e.g., [[dual-issue]] [[in-order]]) while having weaker performance scaling in complex designs (e.g., [[out-of-order]] [[superscalar]]). Therefore it may sometimes show that a very well-design in-order core achieves >80% the performance of very complex high-performance OoO cores while real-world applications will demonstratively show significantly bigger gaps and discrepancies. Additionally, since the score is normilized by [[clock frequency]], it cannot be used to derived absolute performances. Furthermore, since it's possible to achieve higher CoreMark at considerably lower frequency through well-known techniques such as shortening the pipeline which saves significant amount of silicon, using CoreMark/MHz per unite area to derive area-efficiency is problematic.
  
 
== Scores ==
 
== Scores ==

Please note that all contributions to WikiChip may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see WikiChip:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)