[HN Gopher] Benchmarks of Google's Axion Arm-Based CPU
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Benchmarks of Google's Axion Arm-Based CPU
        
       Author : mfiguiere
       Score  : 35 points
       Date   : 2024-10-30 18:54 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.phoronix.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.phoronix.com)
        
       | xnx wrote:
       | > Not only was the Google Axion processors delivering great
       | performance in Google Cloud but doing so with the best
       | performance-per-dollar too.
       | 
       | Nice upgrade for Google's customers. I'm guessing it does it at
       | much lower wattage as well.
        
       | CBLT wrote:
       | Hey can someone else double-check that the formula being used on
       | Page 2 for Perf/Dollar is actually making sense?
       | 
       | They had three measures: A) Flops. Operations per second. B)
       | Cost. Dollars per hour. C) Runtime. Seconds per task.
       | 
       | I expected the formula to be Flops/Cost, resulting in units of
       | operations per dollar.
       | 
       | Instead it was computed as Flops / (Cost * Runtime), to get some
       | units that don't make sense to me -- operations * tasks per
       | dollar seconds?
        
         | jsnell wrote:
         | I agree, all of the perf/cost graphs are nonsensical.
        
         | sliken wrote:
         | The cost is a rate, like $2 per hour, not a purchase price.
         | 
         | So faster CPUs get work done more quickly and may justify a
         | higher cost per hour.
         | 
         | Ah, the graph is wacky, but the text makes sense, looks like a
         | disconnect:                  1. C4A Axion: $2.16 reported cost
         | per hour, test took average of 9 seconds per run: cost
         | approximately 0.005 dollars.             2. T2A Ampere Altra:
         | $1.85 reported cost per hour, test took average of 17 seconds
         | per run: cost approximately 0.009 dollars.             3. C4
         | Xeon Platinum EMR: $2.37 reported cost per hour, test took
         | average of 17 seconds per run: cost approximately 0.011
         | dollars.
         | 
         | So the C4A costs a bit more ($2.16 vs $1.85) but gets
         | approximately perf/$ is around 2x in favor of the C4A.
        
         | svantana wrote:
         | Yup you're right, surprising for a site so dedicated to
         | benchmarks.
        
       | TwentyPosts wrote:
       | > These new C4A instances are advertised as offering up to 50%
       | better performance and up to 60% better energy efficiency than
       | their current generation x86 instance types.
       | 
       | Hardware (see also, Google's TPUs and their performance vs.
       | energy cost) is one reason why I'm fairly bullish on Google.
        
         | throwaway48476 wrote:
         | Hardware companies have yearly releases and work closely with
         | their customers. None of this describes google and it's the
         | reason why nvidia is a trillion dollar company despite Google
         | TPUs existing prior. Basically no one outside of Google uses
         | Google hardware. If it's a generic arm target someone might use
         | it because it's low effort, but it's not exactly a value add.
        
       | genpfault wrote:
       | As always, Newegg link or it doesn't exist :)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-10-30 23:01 UTC)