Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Instructions per cycle

Instructions per cycle (IPC), also known as instructions per clock, is a key performance metric in computer architecture that measures the average number of instructions a processor executes during each clock cycle.^[1] IPC serves as an indicator of processor efficiency, where higher values reflect better utilization of clock cycles for instruction throughput.^[2] IPC is the reciprocal of cycles per instruction (CPI), which quantifies the average number of clock cycles required to complete one instruction.^[1] The formula for IPC is thus IPC = 1 / CPI, and CPI itself is calculated as the total number of clock cycles divided by the total number of instructions executed.^[2] For example, in a processor handling a mix of integer and floating-point additions, CPI can be derived as a weighted average based on the cycle costs of each instruction type, such as 2 cycles for integer adds and 4 cycles for floating-point adds.^[1] This relationship allows IPC to directly inform overall CPU execution time, expressed as CPU\ time = Instruction\ count \times CPI \times Clock\ cycle\ time.^[2] Several factors influence IPC, including the processor's architectural design, the instruction mix of the workload, and compiler optimizations that select efficient instruction sequences.^[1] Hardware elements like pipelining, superscalar execution, and memory systems (e.g., cache hierarchy) can reduce stalls and increase IPC, often pushing modern processors beyond an IPC of 1.0 by enabling parallel instruction processing.^[2]^[3] IPC is particularly valuable in benchmarking suites, where it helps compare processor efficiency across different architectures when combined with clock frequency to estimate instructions per second.^[1]

Fundamentals

Definition

Instructions per cycle (IPC) is defined as the average number of instructions a processor executes per clock cycle, serving as a fundamental measure of processor efficiency in computer architecture.^[4] This metric highlights performance aspects that extend beyond raw clock speed, emphasizing how well a processor utilizes its temporal resources to process instructions.^[5] IPC quantifies instruction throughput by capturing the rate at which instructions are completed relative to the processor's clock rhythm. The clock cycle itself represents the basic unit of processor time, defined as the duration between consecutive clock ticks that synchronize operations.^[6] In a non-pipelined processor design, the ideal IPC value is 1, indicating that exactly one instruction is executed per cycle under optimal conditions.^[7] Advanced processor designs, incorporating features for concurrent instruction handling, can achieve IPC values greater than 1, thereby enhancing overall computational efficiency.^[8] Unlike execution time, which encompasses the total duration required to complete a program or task—influenced by factors such as instruction count and clock frequency—IPC specifically evaluates per-cycle efficiency, providing insight into architectural throughput without regard to absolute runtime.^[4] This distinction allows IPC to serve as a focused indicator of how densely instructions are packed into each cycle, independent of the broader temporal context of program completion.^[9]

Relation to cycles per instruction

Cycles per instruction (CPI) is defined as the average number of clock cycles required to execute a single instruction in a processor.^[10] This metric directly quantifies the efficiency of instruction execution in terms of cycle consumption, where a lower CPI indicates faster per-instruction processing. Since instructions per cycle (IPC) measures the average number of instructions completed per clock cycle, the two are mathematical reciprocals, with IPC = 1 / CPI.^[10] Both CPI and IPC serve complementary roles in processor performance analysis, despite their inverse relationship. CPI excels at pinpointing bottlenecks, such as pipeline stalls caused by data hazards, control dependencies, or structural conflicts, by breaking down the additional cycles beyond the ideal value (typically 1 for basic pipelined designs).^[11] For instance, in pipelined architectures, CPI can be expressed as the sum of an ideal CPI plus stall cycles per instruction, allowing engineers to attribute performance degradation to specific pipeline inefficiencies. In contrast, IPC emphasizes throughput by highlighting how effectively a processor utilizes each cycle to complete instructions, which is particularly insightful for workloads involving instruction-level parallelism.^[12] Historically, CPI emerged as a key metric in the 1970s and 1980s amid early research on pipelined processors, where it facilitated quantitative comparisons between reduced instruction set computing (RISC) and complex instruction set computing (CISC) designs; for example, analyses showed CISC processors incurring significantly higher CPI (around 6 times that of RISC) due to multifaceted instructions requiring more cycles.^[13] As superscalar architectures proliferated in the late 1980s and 1990s, enabling multiple instructions per cycle and CPI values below 1, the field transitioned toward IPC to better reflect enhanced parallelism and overall execution efficiency in modern processors.^[14]

Calculation and measurement

Formulas

The primary formula for instructions per cycle (IPC) is the ratio of the total number of instructions executed to the total number of clock cycles:

\text{IPC} = \frac{\text{Total Instructions Executed}}{\text{Total Clock Cycles}}

^[1] IPC is the reciprocal of cycles per instruction (CPI), where CPI denotes the average number of clock cycles required per instruction.^[1] This inverse relationship, IPC = 1 / CPI, stems from the definitions of both metrics in processor performance analysis.^[1] The connection to overall CPU performance is evident in the standard equation for execution time:

\text{CPU Time} = \text{Instruction Count} \times \text{CPI} \times \text{Clock Cycle Time}

^[15] Substituting CPI = 1 / IPC into this yields an alternative form emphasizing throughput:

\text{CPU Time} = \frac{\text{Instruction Count}}{\text{IPC}} \times \text{Clock Cycle Time}

^[15] For illustration, a program requiring 1 billion instructions and 2 billion clock cycles yields an IPC of 0.5, indicating sub-optimal overlap in execution. In a pipelined processor, however, concurrent execution of multiple instructions can produce an IPC exceeding 1, such as 1.5 under favorable conditions without hazards.^[16]

Practical assessment

Practical assessment of instructions per cycle (IPC) in real systems relies on empirical methods that capture instruction execution and cycle counts during workload runs. Simulation-based approaches allow researchers to model architectural behaviors without physical hardware, using tools like gem5 for cycle-accurate simulations of processor pipelines, caches, and memory systems to derive IPC from simulated instruction and tick statistics. Similarly, the SimpleScalar tool set enables fast execution-driven simulation of modern processor models, facilitating IPC evaluation across varied system configurations by tracking dynamic instruction counts and cycle timings. On actual hardware, modern CPUs provide built-in performance monitoring units (PMUs) to directly measure key events for IPC computation. For instance, Intel's PMU supports counters for events such as INST_RETIRED.ANY (tracking retired instructions) and CPU_CLK_UNHALTED.REF_TSC (counting reference cycles), which can be accessed via tools like Linux perf to sample data during program execution and apply the basic IPC formula for analysis. These counters offer precise, low-overhead profiling, though multiplexing may be required for systems with limited PMU registers to avoid event conflicts. Standardized benchmark suites like SPEC CPU provide a controlled environment for IPC evaluation across diverse workloads. The process involves compiling and running SPEC CPU benchmarks (e.g., integer or floating-point suites), collecting retired instruction and cycle counts using PMU tools during execution, and computing IPC as the ratio of these metrics to assess overall system efficiency.^[17] This method ensures reproducible results, with SPEC's application-oriented tests highlighting architectural strengths in compute-intensive scenarios.^[18]

Influencing factors

Hardware architecture

Pipelining divides the execution of an instruction into multiple sequential stages, such as instruction fetch, decode, execute, memory access, and write-back, enabling the overlapping of operations from different instructions to improve throughput.^[19] In a basic single-issue pipeline, this approach theoretically achieves an instructions per cycle (IPC) of 1 under ideal conditions by processing one instruction per cycle across the stages, representing a significant increase from non-pipelined designs where CPI exceeds 1 due to longer per-instruction latencies.^[19] Deep pipelines, often comprising 10 or more stages in modern processors, further enhance this by allowing higher clock frequencies, but when combined with superscalar techniques, they can sustain IPC values of 4 to 6 in wide-issue configurations before branch mispredictions limit performance.^[20] Superscalar execution extends pipelining by incorporating multiple parallel execution units, permitting the issuance and completion of several instructions per cycle to exploit instruction-level parallelism.^[21] The Intel Pentium processor, released in 1993, introduced dual-issue superscalar capability through two independent pipelines (U-pipe and V-pipe), enabling up to two simple integer instructions to execute per cycle when dependencies allow, thereby potentially doubling IPC compared to single-issue designs.^[21] This architecture relies on instruction pairing rules to maintain efficiency, marking a foundational advancement in hardware parallelism.^[21] Out-of-order execution, coupled with register renaming, mitigates pipeline stalls by dynamically reordering instructions based on data dependencies and resource availability, rather than strict program order.^[22] Register renaming eliminates false dependencies by mapping architectural registers to a larger pool of physical registers, allowing independent instructions to proceed without waiting.^[22] In the Intel Core microarchitecture, introduced in 2006, these features enable dispatching and retiring up to four instructions per cycle, with micro-op fusion further optimizing by combining operations to reduce the number of micro-ops by over 10%, enhancing overall IPC.^[22] Studies on out-of-order processors show performance improvements of approximately 22% in execution time over in-order designs, translating to comparable IPC gains in database workloads.^[23]

Software and workload

The characteristics of a workload profoundly impact the instructions per cycle (IPC) by determining the degree of instruction-level parallelism (ILP) that can be exploited during execution. Workloads rich in ILP, such as matrix multiplication, enable processors to dispatch and complete multiple independent instructions simultaneously, often achieving IPC values exceeding 2 in optimized scenarios where dependencies are minimal.^[24] Conversely, branch-heavy or control-intensive workloads, characterized by frequent conditional branches and irregular control flow, limit ILP due to pipeline stalls from branch mispredictions and serialization, typically resulting in IPC below 1.^[25] Compiler optimizations further modulate IPC by restructuring code to better align with processor capabilities, thereby exposing latent parallelism without altering the underlying algorithm. Loop unrolling, for instance, eliminates repetitive loop control instructions and consolidates multiple iterations into a single basic block, increasing the instruction window size and allowing higher IPC through reduced overhead and improved scheduling opportunities.^[26] Vectorization complements this by transforming scalar operations into SIMD (single instruction, multiple data) forms, enabling parallel processing of data arrays and yielding IPC gains of up to 20% in floating-point intensive tasks.^[27] These techniques are particularly effective in compute-bound workloads, where they can elevate average IPC by revealing parallelism that would otherwise remain hidden in sequential code representations. Operating system interventions in multitasking environments introduce dynamic disruptions that erode IPC gains from well-optimized workloads. Context switches, triggered by scheduler decisions to alternate between processes, incur overhead from saving and restoring register states, thread contexts, and cache contents, which can reduce overall IPC by 0.5-1.5% under moderate interrupt rates like 1000 Hz.^[28] Hardware interrupts, such as those from I/O devices or timers, compound this effect by preempting execution mid-stream, fragmenting instruction streams and lowering effective throughput in scenarios with high system load. In dense multitasking setups, these combined OS effects may diminish IPC by several percent.

Performance integration

With clock speed

The overall performance of a processor, in terms of instructions per second (IPS), is IPS = IPC × Clock Frequency. For a specific program with instruction count IC, execution time = IC / (IPC × F), where F is the clock frequency. This relationship highlights that execution throughput, often measured in instructions per second (IPS), is directly proportional to the product of IPC and frequency. For instance, in analyzing 45 years of CPU evolution, researchers derived CPU time = IC / (IPC × F), where IC is the instruction count and F is the clock frequency, underscoring how balanced improvements in both factors drive runtime reductions.^[29] However, increasing clock frequency does not always yield proportional performance gains, as higher speeds often lead to reduced IPC due to thermal and power constraints that limit pipeline depth or cause frequency throttling. In modern processors, power limits enforce dynamic voltage and frequency scaling (DVFS), where aggressive frequency boosts can degrade IPC by increasing cache misses or serialization, particularly under sustained loads. This trade-off is evident in multicore systems, where power budgets cap total frequency scaling, forcing designers to prioritize IPC enhancements over raw clock increases to maintain efficiency. Amdahl's law further informs this balance in the multicore era, emphasizing that serial portions of workloads limit overall speedup, making IPC optimizations more impactful than uniform frequency scaling across cores. For example, in multicore designs, allocating power to boost frequency on all cores may underperform compared to targeted IPC improvements on parallelizable sections, as serial code bottlenecks persist regardless of clock rate. This principle guides architects to favor techniques like wider execution units or better branch prediction, which elevate IPC without proportionally escalating power draw.^[30] To illustrate, a processor operating at 3 GHz with an IPC of 1.5 achieves 4.5 billion instructions per second (IPS = 3 × 10^9 × 1.5), whereas one at 4 GHz but with a reduced IPC of 1 due to power-induced inefficiencies yields only 4 billion IPS, demonstrating the non-linear interplay. Such scenarios are common in power-constrained environments, where the marginal benefit of frequency scaling diminishes if IPC suffers.

Versus other metrics

Instructions per cycle (IPC) provides a measure of processor efficiency by quantifying the average number of instructions executed per clock cycle, independent of clock frequency. In contrast, millions of instructions per second (MIPS) combines IPC with clock rate, calculated as MIPS = IPC × clock frequency / 10^6. This makes IPC advantageous for isolating architectural efficiency from raw speed, as MIPS can misleadingly vary inversely with overall performance when instruction counts change due to optimizations.^[1] Compared to floating-point operations per second (FLOPS), which assesses computational throughput in scientific and numerical tasks, IPC focuses on general instruction execution across diverse workloads. FLOPS is particularly suited to compute-intensive applications, where graphics processing units (GPUs) excel due to their parallel architecture, often achieving thousands of FLOPS per cycle while maintaining relatively low IPC per core owing to latency stalls and resource contention.^[1]^[31] SPEC scores, derived from standardized benchmarks like SPEC CPU, evaluate overall system performance through normalized execution times on integer and floating-point workloads, incorporating IPC as an underlying component of instruction throughput. However, SPEC metrics are not directly comparable to raw IPC values, as they reflect workload-specific behaviors and composite results rather than isolated cycle efficiency.^[32]

Historical evolution

Early developments

In the 1960s and 1970s, the concept of instructions per cycle (IPC) emerged within the context of mainframe computers, where processors like the IBM System/360 typically achieved an IPC of approximately 1 through single-cycle execution for basic operations such as register-to-register adds. This architecture relied on a fetch-execute cycle that processed one instruction per clock cycle in ideal scenarios, but performance was constrained by the von Neumann bottleneck—the shared memory bus for instructions and data, which limited concurrent access and overall throughput to roughly one instruction fetch per cycle.^[33]^[34] The 1980s introduced pipelining as a pivotal innovation to boost IPC beyond these limits. The MIPS R2000 microprocessor, launched in 1985, implemented a five-stage pipeline (instruction fetch, decode, execute, memory access, and write-back) that overlapped the execution of multiple instructions, enabling a peak IPC of 1 in stall-free conditions and practical averages approaching that value for simple workloads. This design reduced the average cycles per instruction (CPI) compared to prior non-pipelined systems, marking a shift toward exploiting temporal parallelism in hardware.^[35]^[36] Parallel to these advances, the RISC versus CISC debate in the 1980s underscored strategies for elevating IPC through instruction set design. RISC architectures, such as the ARM1 processor introduced by Acorn Computers in 1985, emphasized simpler, fixed-length instructions executed in fewer cycles, facilitating efficient pipelining in a three-stage design and yielding higher IPC than contemporary CISC systems like the VAX, which incurred elevated CPI from variable-length, multi-cycle operations. This approach prioritized hardware simplicity to minimize stalls and maximize throughput, influencing subsequent processor evolutions.^[37]^[38]

Modern advancements

In the 2000s, advancements in superscalar and out-of-order execution significantly improved IPC in processors like the Intel Pentium 4, introduced in 2000 with the NetBurst microarchitecture. This design prioritized high clock speeds through a deeper pipeline but maintained an average IPC of approximately 1.5 to 2 in typical workloads, comparable to or slightly below the previous P6 generation while enabling higher frequencies.^[39] By the late 2000s, the Intel Core i7 series, launched in 2008 based on the Nehalem microarchitecture, further refined these techniques, achieving an average IPC of approximately 1.7 to 2.5 in single-threaded tasks through wider execution units and improved branch prediction, with hyper-threading boosting effective IPC in multi-threaded scenarios by up to 30%.)^[40] Entering the 2010s, multicore designs and vectorization extensions drove further IPC gains. The AMD Zen architecture, debuted in 2017 with the Ryzen processors, delivered single-threaded IPC exceeding 4 in many workloads, representing a 52% uplift over the prior Excavator cores through enhanced out-of-order execution windows and better cache hierarchies.^[41] SIMD extensions like AVX2 in Zen further elevated effective IPC for data-parallel tasks, such as scientific computing and media processing, by allowing multiple operations per cycle on vector data.^[41] In the 2020s, specialized designs for AI and machine learning workloads have optimized IPC in heterogeneous architectures. Apple's M-series chips, starting with the M1 in 2020, feature high-performance Firestorm cores tailored for ML tasks, achieving high IPC, often exceeding 3 in floating-point intensive tasks via advanced vector processing units and unified memory access that minimizes latency in neural network inference.^[42]^[43] These advancements reflect a shift toward workload-specific optimizations, where effective IPC surges in targeted domains like AI accelerators while maintaining broad applicability. From 2021 to 2025, further progress included AMD's Zen 5 architecture (2024), offering about 16% IPC improvement over Zen 4 through wider execution and better branch prediction, and Intel's Arrow Lake processors (2024), with hybrid designs achieving up to 15% IPC gains in efficiency cores for AI workloads. Apple's M4 chip (2024) continued this trend, delivering IPC enhancements in mixed-precision computations for on-device ML.^[44]^[45]^[46]

Applications and limitations

Benchmarking uses

In standardized benchmarking, instructions per cycle (IPC) is frequently derived from the SPEC CPU suites, which include integer and floating-point workloads designed to stress processor architectures under controlled conditions. The SPEC CPU2017 benchmark, for instance, comprises SPECspeed and SPECrate sub-suites that enable comparisons of architectural efficiency across systems, with IPC often calculated post-execution using performance counters to normalize results against reference machines. Analyses of earlier suites like SPEC CPU2006 have shown IPC variations in SPECint2006 workloads, highlighting differences in integer processing capabilities between competing processors.^[47]^[17] Beyond academic evaluation, IPC plays a key role in real-world performance assessment for procurement and optimization. In server environments, organizations use IPC metrics derived from TPC benchmarks, such as TPC-C for online transaction processing, to gauge CPU efficiency in handling mixed workloads involving multiple transaction types; low IPC values (often below 1) in these scenarios underscore bottlenecks in database operations, informing decisions on hardware scaling for enterprise systems.^[48] In gaming applications, IPC correlates with frame-rate improvements, as higher values allow processors to execute more game logic instructions per clock cycle, reducing latency and enhancing rendering throughput in CPU-bound scenarios.^[49] For cross-platform evaluations, particularly in power-constrained mobile devices, IPC is adjusted alongside energy metrics to compare architectures like ARM and x86. Studies as of 2024 reveal that ARM designs often achieve superior energy efficiency in lightweight tasks, enabling longer battery life compared to x86's higher absolute performance but greater consumption, as seen in benchmarks for mobile devices; recent examples include Apple's M-series processors, which demonstrate high performance-per-watt ratios in consumer mobile and laptop computing.^[50] These analyses, typically obtained via hardware performance counters, support architecture selection for embedded systems.

Key limitations

One key limitation of instructions per cycle (IPC) as a performance metric is its strong dependency on the specific workload executed. IPC values can vary dramatically based on factors such as instruction-level parallelism (ILP), memory access patterns, and branch prediction efficiency; for instance, serial, memory-bound applications often achieve IPC below 1 (e.g., around 0.5-0.6 in service-oriented workloads like web servers), while parallel, compute-intensive tasks with high ILP can reach 1.2 or higher (e.g., up to 4 in optimized vectorized code on superscalar processors). This variability arises from pipeline stalls, cache misses, and dependency chains inherent to the workload, making IPC unreliable for generalizing across diverse real-world applications like data analytics versus high-performance computing. Another significant shortcoming is that IPC disregards power consumption and hardware cost implications. Achieving higher IPC typically demands more complex microarchitectures with additional execution units and larger caches, which increase transistor count and dynamic power draw; this trade-off became particularly acute after the breakdown of Dennard scaling around 2006, when voltage scaling failed to keep pace with transistor density, leading to "power walls" that constrain overall system design and efficiency. As a result, processors optimized for peak IPC may consume disproportionate energy relative to performance gains, overlooking the energy-limited realities of modern computing. In multicore environments, IPC's per-core focus further oversimplifies system-level behavior, as it neglects shared resource contention, inter-core communication overheads, and synchronization costs that impact total throughput. For example, a design emphasizing high per-core IPC through aggressive out-of-order execution might excel in single-threaded scenarios but degrade multiprogrammed throughput due to increased cache thrashing and bandwidth saturation across cores. This can lead to misleading rankings, where a processor appears superior in isolated benchmarks but underperforms in holistic, multi-application workloads.

References

[1]
[PDF] Quantifying Performance
How many clock cycles, on average, does it take for every instruction executed? We call this CPI (“Cycles Per Instruction”). Its inverse (1/CPI) is IPC (“ ...
[2]
None
### Summary of Instructions per Cycle (IPC) from the PDF
[3]
Instructions per Cycle - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
'Instructions per Cycle' refers to the number of instructions executed in a single clock cycle by a processor. It is a measure of the efficiency of a processor ...
[4]
[PDF] Dynamic IPC/Clock Rate Optimization - Computer Systems Laboratory
Computer architects are constantly striving to design microarchi- tectures whose hardware complexity achieves optimal balance be- tween instructions per cycle ( ...
[5]
CPU time - Chapter 2: The Role of Performance
Discrete time intervals are called clock cycles. Computer designers often refer to the length of a clock cycle or the clock rate, which is the inverse. Clock ...Missing: architecture | Show results with:architecture
[6]
[PDF] Performance - CS@Cornell
FSMs in a Processor? • multi-cycle (non-pipelined) processor. 9. Page 9. Single ... • IPC = 1/CPI. - Used more frequently than CPI. - Favored because ...
[7]
[PDF] IPC CONSIDERED HARMFUL FOR MULTIPROCESSOR ...
MANY ARCHITECTURAL SIMULATION STUDIES USE INSTRUCTIONS PER CYCLE. (IPC) TO ANALYZE PERFORMANCE. FOR MULTITHREADED PROGRAMS RUNNING. ON MULTIPROCESSOR SYSTEMS ...
[8]
https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~alaa/papers/ieeemicro06_ipc.pdf
[9]
[PDF] Performance - Cornell: Computer Science
CPI: “Cycles per instruction”→Cycle/instruction for on average. • IPC = 1/CPI. - Used more frequently than CPI. - Favored because “bigger is better”, but ...
[10]
[PDF] Some material adapted from Mohamed Younis, UMBC CMSC 611 ...
Some material adapted from Hennessy & Patterson / © 2003 Elsevier Science. Page 2. • ... stalls ... CPI pipelined= Ideal CPI+Pipeline stall cycles per instruction.
[11]
Superscalar - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Designers commonly refer to the reciprocal of the CPI as the instructions per cycle , or IPC. This processor has an IPC of 2 on this program. Executing many ...
[12]
[PDF] Outline - Iscaconf.org
4, (1982). Page 12. ▫ CISC executes fewer instructions per program. (≈ 3/4X instructions), but many more clock cycles per instruction. (≈ 6X CPI). ⇒ RISC ...
[13]
Out of Order Execution and Register Renaming - UAF CS
So as the 1990's arrived, designers began adding "wide" superscalar execution, where multiple instructions start every clock cycle. Nowadays, the metric is " ...
[14]
[PDF] Lecture 9 - Washington
CPU time. X,P. = Instructions executed. P. * CPI. X,P. * Clock cycle time. X. ▫ It can be hard to measure these factors in real life, but this is a useful guide ...
[15]
Superscalar: extracting parallelism at runtime - UAF CS
Nowadays, the metric is "instructions per cycle" (IPC), which can be substantially more than one. (Similarly, at some point travel went from gallons per ...
[16]
SPEC CPU ® 2017 benchmark
The SPEC CPU 2017 benchmark package contains SPEC's next-generation, industry-standardized, CPU intensive suites for measuring and comparing compute ...SPEC CPU2017 Results · Overview · Documentation · SPEC releases major new...
[17]
https://www.spec.org/cpu2017/
[18]
[PDF] LECTURE 7 Pipelining - FSU Computer Science
Pipelining involves not only executing an instruction over multiple cycles, but also executing multiple instructions per cycle. In other words, we're going to ...
[19]
[PDF] A First-Order Superscalar Processor Model
The front-end pipeline depth is five. With maximum issue width four, the IPC barely reaches four before a misprediction occurs. With issue width of eight, IPC ...
[20]
[PDF] Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer's Manual
... Pentium® Processor (1993) ... superscalar perfor- mance (two pipelines, known as u and v, together can execute two instructions per clock). The on-chip ...
[21]
[PDF] Inside Intel® Core™ Microarchitecture
This state-of-the-art multi-core optimized and power-efficient microarchitecture is designed to deliver increased performance and performance-per-watt—thus ...
[22]
[PDF] Performance of Database Workloads on Shared-Memory Systems ...
... order processors pro- vide a 12% improvement in execution time while out-of-order pro- cessors provide a 22% improvement (Figure 2(a)). The benefits from ...
[23]
[PDF] arXiv:1801.09212v4 [cs.PF] 8 Nov 2019
Nov 8, 2019 · Therefore, ILP (Instruction-level. 12. Page 14. parallelism) ceiling is 43.2 GBOPS when the IPC number is 2. Based on the ILP ceiling, the SIMD.
[24]
[PDF] A Study of Control Independence in Superscalar Processors
Go on the other hand is a very control-intensive workload with frequent mispredictions, and it demon- strates the most performance benefit. Gcc also shows a ...
[25]
[PDF] Exploring the Effect of Compiler Optimizations on the Reliability of ...
This is an interesting observation, as we expected a higher IPC when applying increasing levels of optimizations because of loop unrolling, removing unnecessary ...
[26]
[PDF] Speculative Dynamic Vectorization - Iscaconf.org
Speculative dynamic vectorization increases the IPC of a 4-way superscalar processor with one wide bus by 21,2% for SpecInt and. 8,1 % for SpecFP.
[27]
[PDF] The Context-Switch Overhead Inflicted by Hardware Interrupts (and ...
The over- all overhead is found to be 0.5-1.5% at 1000 Hz, linearly proportional to the tick rate, and steadily declining as the speed of processors increases.Missing: IPC | Show results with:IPC
[28]
Improving IPC by kernel design
Hardware interrupts are integrated into this concept by transforming them into interrupt messages which are delivered by the p-kernel to the appropriate thread.Missing: percentage | Show results with:percentage
[29]
Sam Naffziger AMD Senior Fellow - IEEE Web Hosting
Dec 13, 2006 · Frequency =.85. Area. =2. Power =1. Perf. ≈1.7. Perf/Watt ≈1.7. Page 37. Multi-Core Issues: Amdahl's Law. There is almost always a portion of an.
[30]
[PDF] Scaling the Power Wall: A Path to Exascale - Research at NVIDIA
Nov 16, 2014 · achieved versus the maximum theoretical capability of the GPU. IPC is limited by stalls due to memory access latency, resource conflicts, and ...
[31]
[PDF] An Architectural Assessment of SPEC CPU Benchmark Relevance
SPEC compute intensive benchmarks are often used to evaluate processors in high-performance systems. However, such evaluations are valid only if these ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[32]
[PDF] The IBM System/360 Model 91: Machine Philosophy and Instruction
It is easily shown that issuing at a rate in excess of one instruction per cycle leads to a rapid expansion of hardware and complexity. (Variable-length ...
[33]
How the von Neumann bottleneck is impeding AI computing
Feb 9, 2025 · Processors hit what is called the von Neumann bottleneck, the lag that happens when data moves slower than computation.Missing: 360 cycle execution IPC
[34]
[PDF] MIPS R2000 RISC Microprocessor
MIPS R2000 with five pipeline stages and 450,000 transistors was the world's first commercial RISC microprocessor. Photograph ©1995-2004 courtesy of Michael ...Missing: IPC | Show results with:IPC
[35]
[PDF] A MIPS R2000 IMPLEMENTATION - IIS Windows Server
The instructions are processed in a five-stage pipeline: fetch, decode, execute, memory, and writeback. Instructions are read from the instruction cache ...
[36]
RISC vs. CISC: the Post-RISC Era: A historical approach to the debate
Oct 1, 1999 · The most common approach to comparing RISC and CISC is to list the features of each and place them side-by-side for comparison, discussing how each feature ...The Cisc Solution · The Risc Solution · Risc And Cisc, Side By Side?
[37]
A history of ARM, part 1: Building the first chip - Ars Technica
Sep 23, 2022 · The RISC CPU that Acorn was designing would have a three-stage pipeline. ... The first version of the chip came back to Acorn on April 26, 1985.
[38]
[PDF] Inside the NetBurst™ Micro-Architecture of the Intel® Pentium® 4 ...
... architecture (on the same manufacturing process) while maintaining an average IPC that was within approximately 10% to 20% of the P6 micro-architecture. In ...
[39]
AMD "Zen" Core Architecture
As a result, single-threaded IPC is increased by about ~16% gen-over-gen. ... When combined with the 800 MHz clock increase over last gen, this can add up to 29% ...
[40]
[PDF] Performance Characterization of SPEC CPU2006 Benchmarks on ...
Performance charac- teristics include Instruction per cycle (IPC), run time, cache miss rate and branch miss rate are measured and reported. Our re- sults ...
[41]
[PDF] From A to E: analyzing TPC's OLTP benchmarks
Mar 18, 2013 · Finally, Figure 6 shows how many instructions per cycle. (IPC) these OLTP benchmarks can execute per core on the left-hand side and how many ...
[42]
Running Gaming Workloads through AMD's Zen 5 - Chips and Cheese
Aug 2, 2025 · The op cache can nominally deliver 12 micro-ops per cycle, but average throughput hovers around 6 micro-ops per cycle. One culprit is ...
[43]
A comparison of x86 and ARM architectures power efficiency
Towards green data centers: A comparison of x86 and ARM architectures power efficiency ... URL: http://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/tegra_white_papers ...Missing: pdf | Show results with:pdf