<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic multithreaded performance of sparse blas not good in Intel® oneAPI Math Kernel Library</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/multithreaded-performance-of-sparse-blas-not-good/m-p/766172#M254</link>
    <description>Ashade,&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;Do you mean that you see 5% of scalability with 4 cores vs 1 core?&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;what is the matrixes size? &lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 10 Apr 2011 15:56:39 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Gennady_F_Intel</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-04-10T15:56:39Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>multithreaded performance of sparse blas not good</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/multithreaded-performance-of-sparse-blas-not-good/m-p/766170#M252</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi all&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm having trouble with matrix multiplication on Sparse Blas. I am trying to multiply 2 huge matrices and compare multithreaded and single threaded performance on an quad core AMD Phenom II 940 with 4GB of DDR3 RAM.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am using mkl_scsrmm. On benchmark, I repeat the call to mkl_scsrmm a hundred times and I compute the total time in seconds. The matrices have 700,000 (dense) and 20,000 (sparse) elements.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The problem is that the multithreaded performance is only 5% better than single threaded sequential performance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What is happening?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ashade&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 09 Apr 2011 21:56:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/multithreaded-performance-of-sparse-blas-not-good/m-p/766170#M252</guid>
      <dc:creator>ashade</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-04-09T21:56:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>multithreaded performance of sparse blas not good</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/multithreaded-performance-of-sparse-blas-not-good/m-p/766171#M253</link>
      <description>With such benchmarks, the devil is in the details. You may be interested to see what Amdahl's Law states regarding your runs.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;If you want more specific help, you will have to document what you did, and state reasons why the results are not what was expected.</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:09:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/multithreaded-performance-of-sparse-blas-not-good/m-p/766171#M253</guid>
      <dc:creator>mecej4</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-04-10T12:09:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>multithreaded performance of sparse blas not good</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/multithreaded-performance-of-sparse-blas-not-good/m-p/766172#M254</link>
      <description>Ashade,&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;Do you mean that you see 5% of scalability with 4 cores vs 1 core?&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;what is the matrixes size? &lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Apr 2011 15:56:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/multithreaded-performance-of-sparse-blas-not-good/m-p/766172#M254</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gennady_F_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-04-10T15:56:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

