2H 2015
intel-xeon-phi-sw-ecosystem-guide-2h-2015-public3 intel-xeon-phi-sw-ecosystem-guide-2h-2015-public3
Is Intel® Xeon Phi Coprocessor Performance Compelling Compared to NVIDIA*? Software Performance Increases with 2-Socket Intel® Xeon® Processor E5-2697 v2 or v3 + Intel® Xeon Phi Coprocessor 7120 compared to Intel® Xeon® Processor E5-2697 v2 or v3 + NVIDIA GPU 1 QuanLib* SP Monte Carlo QuanLib* SP Monte Carlo 5.17 Isotropic FD RTM Kernel* Isotropic FD RTM Kernel* 4.78 LAMMPS* Stillinger-Weber LAMMPS* Stillinger-Weber 3.73 Embree* 2.2 Pathtracer Embree* 2.2 Pathtracer 3.48 QuantLib* Black-Scholes QuantLib* Black-Scholes 2.62 LAMMPS* Rhodopsin 512K LAMMPS* Rhodopsin 512K 1.94 ASKAP* ASKAP Xcelerit* Xcelerit* 1.25 1.43 1 Performance demonstrated in respective proof points in this presentation Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors. Performance tests, such as SYSmark and MobileMark, are measured using specific computer systems, components, software, operations and functions. Any change to any of those factors may cause the results to vary. You should consult other information and performance tests to assist you in fully evaluating your contemplated purchases, including the performance of that product when combined with other products. * Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others. 10
Memory Capacity (GB) Memory Comparison: Intel vs. NVIDIA* Memory Capacity (GB) Without ECC With ECC 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 6.0 5.8 3.25% Drop w/ECC On 8.0 7.8 16.0 15.5 4.0 3.5 5.0 12.5% Drop w/ECC On 3120P 5110P 7120P K10 K20 K20X K40 4.4 6.0 5.3 12.0 10.5 • Intel has Higher Memory Capacity (16GB vs. 12GB) • Intel has less impact to capacity when ECC is Enabled • NVIDIA loses ~12.5% mem capacity when ECC is enabled vs. ~3.25% for Intel Source: Intel results Measured as Oct, 2013. NVIDIA* results values based on www.nvidia.com K10 = capacity behind each GPU on the card Some results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software design or configuration may affect actual performance. Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors. Performance tests, such as SYSmark and MobileMark, are measured using specific computer systems, components, software, operations and functions. Any change to any of those factors may cause the results to vary. You should consult other information and performance tests to assist you in fully evaluating your contemplated purchases, including the performance of that product when combined with other products. For more information go to http://www.intel.com/performance *Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others. 11
- Page 1 and 2: 2H 2015
- Page 3 and 4: Intel® Modern Code Developer Chall
- Page 5 and 6: New or Updated Proof Points NEW pro
- Page 7 and 8: Intel® Xeon Phi Coprocessors Softw
- Page 9: Intel® Xeon® Processor E5-2697 v2
- Page 13 and 14: A Growing Ecosystem: The Intel® Xe
- Page 15 and 16: Comparative Performance LAMMPS* Sti
- Page 17 and 18: Comparative Performance Johns Hopki
- Page 19 and 20: Comparative Performance 1 0 BLAST*
- Page 21 and 22: Comparative Performance NAMD* 2.10
- Page 23 and 24: Comparative Performance LAMMPS* Liq
- Page 25 and 26: Comparative Performance LAMMPS* Rho
- Page 27 and 28: Comparative Performance LAMMPS* Liq
- Page 29 and 30: Comparative Performance LAMMPS* Rho
- Page 31 and 32: Comparative Performance LAMMPS* Pro
- Page 33 and 34: Comparative Performance AMBER* 14 P
- Page 35 and 36: Comparative Performance AMBER* 14 P
- Page 37 and 38: Comparative Performance Burrows-Whe
- Page 39 and 40: Comparative Performance NWChem* CCS
- Page 41 and 42: Discover and design like never befo
- Page 43 and 44: Comparative Performance miniGhost*
- Page 45 and 46: Comparative Performance Quantum ESP
- Page 47 and 48: Comparative Performance ANSYS Mecha
- Page 49 and 50: Comparative Performance ANSYS Mecha
- Page 51 and 52: Comparative Performance ANSYS Mecha
- Page 53 and 54: Comparative Performance Sandia Mant
- Page 55 and 56: Comparative Increase Autodesk Maya*
- Page 57 and 58: Comparative Performance OpenLB* Cyl
- Page 59 and 60: CLUSTER BENCHMARKS New Data Center
Memory Capacity (GB)<br />
Memory Comparison: Intel vs. NVIDIA*<br />
Memory Capacity (GB)<br />
Without ECC With ECC<br />
16<br />
14<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
6.0<br />
5.8<br />
3.25% Drop<br />
w/ECC On<br />
8.0<br />
7.8<br />
16.0<br />
15.5<br />
4.0<br />
3.5<br />
5.0<br />
12.5% Drop<br />
w/ECC On<br />
3120P 5110P 7120P K10 K20 K20X K40<br />
4.4<br />
6.0<br />
5.3<br />
12.0<br />
10.5<br />
• Intel has Higher Memory Capacity (16GB vs. 12GB)<br />
• Intel has less impact to capacity when ECC is Enabled<br />
• NVIDIA loses ~12.5% mem capacity when ECC is enabled vs. ~3.25% for Intel<br />
Source:<br />
Intel results Measured as Oct, 2013. NVIDIA* results<br />
values based on www.nvidia.com<br />
K10 = capacity behind each GPU on the card<br />
Some results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software design or configuration may affect actual performance.<br />
Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors. Performance tests, such as SYSmark and MobileMark, are measured using specific computer systems,<br />
components, software, operations and functions. Any change to any of those factors may cause the results to vary. You should consult other information and performance tests to assist you in fully evaluating your contemplated<br />
purchases, including the performance of that product when combined with other products. For more information go to http://www.intel.com/performance *Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others.<br />
11