2H 2015
intel-xeon-phi-sw-ecosystem-guide-2h-2015-public3 intel-xeon-phi-sw-ecosystem-guide-2h-2015-public3
Improving financial outcomes through faster simulations Financial Services 60
Comparative Performance Monte Carlo * European Option Pricing 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Intel® Xeon® processor E5-2697 v2 + Java* managed code Intel® Xeon® processor E5-2697 v2 + C/C++ native Intel® Xeon Phi coprocessor 7120A + C/C++ native Intel® Xeon Phi coprocessor 7120A + Hadoop* Java: version 8 update 30+ C/C++: Intel® Parallel Composer XE 15.0 For configuration details, go here. Monte Carlo European Option Pricing Speed Up 0.69X 1 8.91X Hadoop: Cloudera* Distribution of Hadoop 5.3+ 31.25X SOURCE: INTEL MEASURED RESULTS AS OF MARCH, 2015 1 NODE Application: Monte Carlo European option Description: Implements European Option Pricing using Monte Carlo. It compares the performance of 1) Java* code, 2) C/C++ native code, 3) C/C++ offload accelerated code, 4) C/C++ accelerated code using Hadoop*. Availability: • Code and Recipe: Available here. APPROVED FOR PUBLIC PRESENTATION NEW Usage Model: Java (Managed Offload), Native on the host, Native and Accelerators, Hadoop on native and Accelerated. Highlights: • Java code can use parallelism but cannot vectorize any control flows • Native C/C++ code can take advantage of both vectorization & parallelization • Native Accelerated code offloads the whole workload to Intel® Xeon Phi Coprocessor. • Hadoop distribute the workload to 4 remote modes using mapreduce • Remote nodes accelerate the workload and send the run result back to the head note. Results: • Intel Java Stream can parallelize the workload but not vectorize • Native interface bring vectorization and parallelization to the workload • Acceleration extends the parallelism from Multicore to manycore • Hadoop map reduce can further distribute the application into 4 nodes and achieve up to 31X improvement. 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 61
- Page 9 and 10: Intel® Xeon® Processor E5-2697 v2
- Page 11 and 12: Memory Capacity (GB) Memory Compari
- 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: CLUSTER BENCHMARKS New Data Center
- Page 63 and 64: Comparative Performance QuantLib* S
- Page 65 and 66: Comparative Performance Monte Carlo
- Page 67 and 68: Comparative Performance Monte Carlo
- Page 69 and 70: Comparative Performance Monte Carlo
- Page 71 and 72: Comparative Performance Xcelerit* L
- Page 73 and 74: Comparative Increase 1 0 Iso3DFD* 1
- Page 75 and 76: Comparative Performance Petrobras*
- Page 77 and 78: CLUSTER BENCHMARK Data Center Serve
- Page 79 and 80: Comparative Performance BerkeleyGW*
- Page 81 and 82: Comparative Performance ASKAP* tHog
- Page 83 and 84: Comparative Increase specfem3D 300K
- Page 85 and 86: CLUSTER BENCHMARK 6,400 NODES APPRO
- Page 87 and 88: Comparative Performance Gyrokinetic
- Page 89 and 90: Comparative Increase ROMS* Idealize
- Page 91 and 92: Comparative Performance NASA* OVERF
- Page 93 and 94: Improving speed and quality through
- Page 95 and 96: Comparative Performance Embree 2.2
- Page 97 and 98: Intel® Software Development Tools
- Page 99 and 100: Features and Configurations Intel®
- Page 101 and 102: Speedup Turn Big Data Into Informat
- Page 103 and 104: Scalable Profiling for MPI and Hybr
- Page 105 and 106: Bright Cluster Manager* Advanced Cl
- Page 107 and 108: Intel® Xeon Phi Coprocessor Develo
- Page 109 and 110: Intel® Developer Zone Join us on S
Improving financial outcomes through faster simulations<br />
Financial Services<br />
60