Hacker News Reader

Comment by fermienrico | Hacker News Reader

Why not show Frequency graph instead of clock cycles? I don't know what 1x10-9 means in terms of CPU speed.

I always imagined super computer coding being a place where assembly is considered abstract. If you are that close to the hardware then measuring your code in clock cycles does make sense. The link below is to an article about 'div' optimization in compilers that gives more insight.

[1] http://www.nynaeve.net/?p=115

Because clock cycles are a linear measurement of time.

Also, for the record, 1x10-9 seconds should be a nanosecond.

Yes, I know it is a nanosecond but that wasn't my point.

My point is, Freq is widely used in reporting CPU speeds. No one "knows" what 3 ns/clock speed relates to. Everyone knows 4.0 GHz. You see my point?

Yes, I see your point, which is what the primary part of my comment was directly addressing. seconds/clock is a linear measurement of time, graphs better, and for people who actually deal with timing of performance sensitive code, time/op is a much more natural measurement that is generally preferred when measuring and profiling code.

Thanks, I think that makes sense since 1/x is a non-linear function.

I have a follow-up question - what's then the advantage of measuring speed as ops/unit-time (Freq)? How come we don't see 0.25 ns/op as advertised speed on a Processor?

Exactly.

Honestly I don't know. I suspect it's mostly historical and marketing driven. I think CPU clocks are driven by some sort of oscillator, which is likely thought of as a frequency. And ops/unit-time may be a bit ambiguous, since if we try to choose say instructions, not all instructions take the same amount of clock cycles.

Additionally from a marketing perspective, I suspect you get a bit of an hz, more is better, sort of increase of numbers.

Honestly though I really don't know, this is all just speculation. Similarly video games are often "marketed" in Frames/Second, which is exactly the same problem.

You're kind of blowing my mind. The more I think, the more stupid I feel.

If Freq is non-linear function of period, which it is... then Period is also a non-linear function of Freq. They're an inverse of each other.

So, if we're talking about Frequency, then the same argument could be made that Period is non-linear and it cannot be used to compare speed, since Period is 1/f - a non-linear function.

wtf is going on here... my brain hurts.

Yes, that's very true. I think it can be sometimes hard to ground yourself in what the actual thing is you care about. I think here is where experience trying to use the values is helpful, hence my video game example in a sibling thread.

"How come we don't see 0.25 ns/op as advertised speed on a Processor?"

Because different operations take different numbers of cycles and have different latencies. See http://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf for a table of such.

I have the same question, but I'm not grasping whatever it is you're trying to say. What does it mean to be a "linear" measurement of time? (or even "graphs better"? That sounds subjective. I thought "up and to the right" was better /s)

> for people who actually deal with timing of performance sensitive code

While it is — at least in my experience — true that code segments are usually profiled in time / operation, aren't CPUs typically measured in IPS (instructions/sec), since clock speed is now somewhat decoupled from performance given optimizations present in modern CPUs, such as instruction pipelining?

It's X vs 1/X. If it's 1/X of time, you get properties such as something that is twice as fast is a 0.5 times the value, but something 4 times as fast is only .25 times the value. thus making the result non-linear.

Also I think something that makes it a bit more clear the advantages of being time/ops consider optimizing a video game, and we have the task of trying to get from 60 FPS to 90 FPS and we have say 10 sub tasks that each take say 10% of the frame time, it's hard to say how much optimization I'll have to do off the top of your head. But if instead I say that you have to get from a 16.6 ms frame to an 11.1 ms frame, and you have 10 tasks that take 10% of the frame time, which is obviously about 1.66 ms each, and I also know I need to save 5.5 ms of frame, the scales of which I'm thinking in are all nice and easy to reason about.

1x10-9 = 1 clock cycle per nano second

My statement was a rhetorical one. Ofcourse, I can find out what 10^-9 seconds is.

1 GHz = 10^-9 seconds

Reply on news.ycombinator.com