Performance Evaluation of the Intel Sandy Bridge Based NASA Pleiades Using Scientific and Engineering Applications

  • Subhash SainiEmail author
  • Johnny Chang
  • Haoqiang Jin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8551)


We present a performance evaluation of Pleiades based on the Intel Xeon E5-2670 processor, a fourth-generation eight-core Sandy Bridge architecture, and compare it with the previous third generation Nehalem architecture. Several architectural features have been incorporated in Sandy Bridge: (a) four memory channels as opposed to three in Nehalem; (b) memory speed increased from 1333 MHz to 1600 MHz; (c) ring to connect on-chip L3 cache with cores, system agent, memory controller, and QPI agent and I/O controller to increase the scalability; (d) new AVX unit with wider vector registers of 256 bit; (e) integration of PCI-Express 3.0 controllers into the I/O subsystem on chip; (f) new Turbo Boost version 2.0 where base frequency of processor increased from 2.6 to 3.2 GHz; and (g) QPI link rate from 6.4 to 8 GT/s and two QPI links to second socket. We critically evaluate these new features using several low-level benchmarks, and four full-scale scientific and engineering applications.


Performance Gain Memory Bandwidth Memory Latency Last Level Cache Turbo Boost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Saini, S., Naraikin, A., Biswas, R., Barkai, D., Sandstrom, T.: Early performance evaluation of a “Nehalem” cluster using scientific and engineering applications. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Conference on High Performance Computing, SC 2009, Portland, Oregon, USA, November 14-20 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saini, S., Jin, H., Hood, R., Barker, D., Mehrotra, P., Biswas, R.: The impact of hyper-threading on processor resource utilization in production applications. In: 8th International Conference on High Performance Computing, HiPC 2011, Bengaluru, India, December 18-21 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Intel Xeon Benchmark -,
  5. 5.
    Texas Advanced Computing Center – Stampede,
  6. 6.
    NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center (NWSC),
  7. 7.
    HPC Challenge Benchmarks,
  8. 8.
    Schöne, R., Hackenberg, D., Molka, D.: Memory performance at reduced CPU clock speeds: an analysis of current x86_64 processors. In: Proceedings of the 2012 USENIX Conference on Power-Aware Computing and Systems (HotPower 2012), Hollywood, USA, October 7 (2012),
  9. 9.
    NAS Parallel Benchmarks (NPB),
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Mavriplis, D.J., Aftosmis, M.J., Berger, M.: High Resolution Aerospace Applications using the NASA Columbia Supercomputer. In: Proc. ACM/IEEE, SC 2005, Seattle, WA (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    M.I.T General Circulation Model (MITgcm),
  14. 14.
    Saini, S., Talcott, D., Jespersen, D., Djomehri, J., Jin, H., Biswas, R.: Scientific application-based performance comparison of SGI Altix 4700, IBM POWER5+, and SGI ICE 8200 supercomputers. In: High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, SC 2008, Austin, Texas, November 15-21 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morozov, V., Kumaran, K., Vishwanath, V., Meng, J., Papka, M.E.: Early Experience on the Blue Gene/Q Supercomputing System. In: IEEE IPDPS, Boston, May 20-23 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barker, K., Davis, K., Hoisie, A., Kerbyson, D.J., Lang, M., Pakin, S., Sancho, J.C.: Entering the Petaflop Era: The Architecture and Performance of Roadrunner. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ACM Supercomputing, SC 2008, Austin, TX (November 2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barker, K., Hoisie, A., Kerbyson, D.: An Early Performance Analysis of POWER7-IH HPC Systems. In: SC 2011, Seattle, November 12-18 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kerbyson, D.J., Barker, K.J., Vishnu, A., Hoisie, A: Comparing the Performance of Blue Gene/Q with Leading Cray XE6 and InfiniBand Systems. In: ICPADS 2012, pp. 556–563 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alam, S., Barrett, R., Bast, M., Fahey, M., Kuehn, J., McCurdy, C., Rogers, J., Roth, P., Sankaran, R., Vetter, J., Worley, P., Yu, W.: Early Evaluation of IBM BlueGene/P. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, SC 2008, Austin, TX, November 15-21 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alam, S.R., Barrett, R.F., Fahey, M.R., Kuehn, J.A., Messer, O.E., Mills, R.T., Roth, P.C., Vetter, J.S., Worley, P.H.: An Evaluation of the ORNL Cray XT3. International Journal for High Performance Computer Applications 22, 52–80 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    PMU Performance Monitoring PerfMon | Intel® Developer Zone
  22. 22.
    Intel® Architecture Instruction Set Extensions Programming Reference, 319433-014 (August 2012)

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NASA Advanced Supercomputing DivisionNASA Ames Research CenterMoffett FieldUSA

Personalised recommendations