Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of HPC Architectures for Computing All-Pairs Shortest Paths. Intel Xeon Phi KNL vs NVIDIA Pascal

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computer Science – CACIC 2020 (CACIC 2020)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1409))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Today, one of the main challenges for high-performance computing systems is to improve their performance by keeping energy consumption at acceptable levels. In this context, a consolidated strategy consists of using accelerators such as GPUs or many-core Intel Xeon Phi processors. In this work, devices of the NVIDIA Pascal and Intel Xeon Phi Knights Landing architectures are described and compared. Selecting the Floyd-Warshall algorithm as a representative case of graph and memory-bound applications, optimized implementations were developed to analyze and compare performance and energy efficiency on both devices. As it was expected, Xeon Phi showed superior when considering double-precision data. However, contrary to what was considered in our preliminary analysis, it was found that the performance and energy efficiency of both devices were comparable using single-precision datatype.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.top500.org/green500/.

  2. 2.

    Top500 www.top500.org.

  3. 3.

    If there is no path between nodes i and j, their distance is considered to be infinite (usually represented as the largest positive value).

  4. 4.

    The characteristics of each platform were described at the end of Sect. 2.1.

  5. 5.

    Intel Performance Counter Monitor: http://www.intel.com/software/pcm.

  6. 6.

    NVIDIA System Management Interface: https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-system-management-interface.

  7. 7.

    Naturally, it is also possible to develop an implementation that processes the matrix in parts and does not have this memory limitation. However, the need to run I/O operations for each round would significantly degrade performance.

References

  1. Codreanu, V., Rodríguez, J., Saastad, O.W.: Best practice guide - knights landing (2017). https://bit.ly/2CEolbR

  2. Costanzo, M., Rucci, E., Costi, U., Chichizola, F., Naiouf, M.: Comparación de Arquitecturas HPC para Computar Caminos Mínimos en Grafos. Intel Xeon Phi KNL vs NVIDIA Pascal. In: Actas del XXVI Congreso Argentino de Ciencias de la Computación (CACIC 2020), pp. 82–92 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Deng, L., Bai, H., Zhao, D., Wang, F.: Kepler GPU vs. Xeon phi: performance case study with a high-order CFD application. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC), pp. 87–94 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Deveci, M., Trott, C., Rajamanickam, S.: Multithreaded sparse matrix-matrix multiplication for many-core and GPU architectures. Parallel Comput. 78, 33–46 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parco.2018.06.009. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167819118301923

  5. Foley, D., Danskin, J.: Ultra-performance pascal GPU and NVLINK interconnect. IEEE Micro 37(2), 7–17 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gawande, N.A., Daily, J.A., Siegel, C., Tallent, N.R., Vishnu, A.: Scaling deep learning workloads: Nvidia DGX-1/pascal and intel knights landing. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 108, 1162–1172 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Giefers, H., Staar, P., Bekas, C., Hagleitner, C.: Analyzing the energy-efficiency of sparse matrix multiplication on heterogeneous systems: a comparative study of GPU, Xeon Phi and FPGA. In: 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), pp. 46–56 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hashemi, S., Anthony, N., Tann, H., Bahar, R.I., Reda, S.: Understanding the impact of precision quantization on the accuracy and energy of neural networks. In: Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE), pp. 1474–1479 (2017). https://doi.org/10.23919/DATE.2017.7927224

  9. Igual, F.D., García, C., Botella, G., Piñuel, L., Prieto-Matías, M., Tirado, F.: Non-negative matrix factorization on low-power architectures and accelerators. Comput. Electr. Eng. 46(C), 139–156 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2015.03.035

  10. Katz, G.J., Kider, Jr, J.T.: All-pairs shortest-paths for large graphs on the GPU. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGGRAPH/EUROGRAPHICS Symposium on Graphics Hardware, GH 2008, pp. 47–55. Eurographics Association, Aire-la-Ville (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lund, B.D., Smith, J.W.: A multi-stage CUDA kernel for Floyd-Warshall. CoRR abs/1001.4108 (2010). http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4108

  12. Morgan, T.P.: The end of Xeon Phi - It’s Xeon and Maybe GPUs from here (2018). https://www.green500.org/

  13. NVIDIA: NVIDIA Tesla P100. https://bit.ly/2Ozrrk1

  14. Reinders, J., Jeffers, J., Sodani, A.: Intel Xeon Phi Processor High Performance Programming Knights, Landing edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Boston (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Robertsén, F., Mattila, K., Westerholm, J.: High-performance SIMD implementation of the lattice-Boltzmann method on the Xeon Phi processor. Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp. 31(13), e5072 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.5072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rucci, E., De Giusti, A., Naiouf, M.: Blocked all-pairs shortest paths algorithm on Intel Xeon Phi KNL processor: a case study. In: De Giusti, A.E. (ed.) CACIC 2017. CCIS, vol. 790, pp. 47–57. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75214-3_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Rucci, E., Garcia, C., Botella, G., De Giusti, A., Naiouf, M., Prieto-Matias, M.: SWIFOLD: Smith-Waterman implementation on FPGA with OpenCL for long DNA sequences. BMC Syst. Biol. 12(5), 96 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12918-018-0614-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sakamoto, R., Kondo, M., Fujita, K., Ichimura, T., Nakajima, K.: The effectiveness of low-precision floating arithmetic on numerical codes: a case study on power consumption. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing in Asia-Pacific Region, HPCAsia2020, pp. 199–206. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3368474.3368492

  19. Scheidegger, S., Mikushin, D., Kubler, F., Schenk, O.: Rethinking large-scale economic modeling for efficiency: optimizations for GPU and Xeon Phi clusters. In: 2018 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), pp. 610–619 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Trader, T.: Requiem for a Phi: knights landing discontinued (2018). https://www.hpcwire.com/2018/07/25/end-of-the-road-for-knights-landing-phi

  21. Venkataraman, G., Sahni, S., Mukhopadhyaya, S.: A blocked all-pairs shortest-paths algorithm. SWAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1851, pp. 419–432. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44985-X_36

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Véstias, M., Neto, H.: Trends of CPU, GPU and FPGA for high-performance computing. In: 2014 24th International Conference on Field Programmable Logic and Applications (FPL), pp. 1–6 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/FPL.2014.6927483

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the support of NVIDIA through the donation of the Titan X GPU used in this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. III-LIDI, Facultad de Informática, UNLP – CIC, 1900, La Plata, Bs As, Argentina

    Manuel Costanzo, Enzo Rucci, Franco Chichizola & Marcelo Naiouf

  2. Facultad de Informática, UNLP, 1900, La Plata, Bs As, Argentina

    Ulises Costi

Authors
  1. Manuel Costanzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Enzo Rucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ulises Costi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Franco Chichizola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcelo Naiouf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enzo Rucci .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National University of La Plata, La Plata, Argentina

    Patricia Pesado

  2. National University of La Matanza, San Justo, Argentina

    Jorge Eterovic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Costanzo, M., Rucci, E., Costi, U., Chichizola, F., Naiouf, M. (2021). Comparison of HPC Architectures for Computing All-Pairs Shortest Paths. Intel Xeon Phi KNL vs NVIDIA Pascal. In: Pesado, P., Eterovic, J. (eds) Computer Science – CACIC 2020. CACIC 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1409. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75836-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75836-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-75835-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-75836-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation