3 ms·
Hey can someone else double-check that the formula being used on Page 2 for Perf/Dollar is actually making sense? They had three measures: A) Flops. Operation
by CBLT 2y ago
Hey can someone else double-check that the formula being used on Page 2 for Perf/Dollar is actually making sense?
They had three measures:
A) Flops. Operations per second.
B) Cost. Dollars per hour.
C) Runtime. Seconds per task.
I expected the formula to be Flops/Cost, resulting in units of operations per dollar.
Instead it was computed as Flops / (Cost * Runtime), to get some units that don't make sense to me — operations * tasks per dollar seconds?
- jsnell 2y agoI agree, all of the perf/cost graphs are nonsensical.
- sliken 2y agoThe cost is a rate, like $2 per hour, not a purchase price. So faster CPUs get work done more quickly and may justify a higher cost per hour. Ah, the graph is wacky, but the text makes sense, looks like a disconnect: 1. C4A Axion: $2.16 reported cost per hour, test took average of 9 seconds per run: cost approximately 0.005 dollars. 2. T2A Ampere Altra: $1.85 reported cost per hour, test took average of 17 seconds per run: cost approximately 0.009 dollars. 3. C4 Xeon Platinum EMR: $2.37 reported cost per hour, test took average of 17 seconds per run: cost approximately 0.011 dollars. So the C4A costs a bit more ($2.16 vs $1.85) but gets approximately perf/$ is around 2x in favor of the C4A.
- svantana 2y agoYup you're right, surprising for a site so dedicated to benchmarks.