TY - GEN
T1 - Evaluating programmable architectures for imaging and vision applications
AU - Vasilyev, Artem
AU - Bhagdikar, Nikhil
AU - Pedram, Ardavan
AU - Richardson, Stephen
AU - Kvatinsky, Shahar
AU - Horowitz, Mark
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2016 IEEE.
PY - 2016/12/14
Y1 - 2016/12/14
N2 - Algorithms for computational imaging and computer vision are rapidly evolving, and hardware must follow suit: The next generation of image signal processors (ISPs) must be 'programmable' to support new algorithms created with high-level frameworks. In this work, we compare flexible ISP architectures, using applications written in the Darkroom image processing language. We target two fundamental architecture classes: programmable in time, as represented by SIMD, and programmable in space, as typified by coarse grain reconfigurable array architectures (CGRA). We consider several optimizations on these two base architectures, such as register file partitioning for SIMD, bus based routing and pipelined wires for CGRA, and line buffer variations. After these optimizations on average, CGRA provides 1.6x better energy efficiency and 1.4x better compute density versus a SIMD solution, and 1.4x the energy efficiency and 3.1x the compute density of an FPGA. However the cost of providing general programmability is still high: compared to an ASIC, CGRA has 6x worse energy and area efficiency, and this ratio would be roughly 10x if memory dominated applications were excluded.
AB - Algorithms for computational imaging and computer vision are rapidly evolving, and hardware must follow suit: The next generation of image signal processors (ISPs) must be 'programmable' to support new algorithms created with high-level frameworks. In this work, we compare flexible ISP architectures, using applications written in the Darkroom image processing language. We target two fundamental architecture classes: programmable in time, as represented by SIMD, and programmable in space, as typified by coarse grain reconfigurable array architectures (CGRA). We consider several optimizations on these two base architectures, such as register file partitioning for SIMD, bus based routing and pipelined wires for CGRA, and line buffer variations. After these optimizations on average, CGRA provides 1.6x better energy efficiency and 1.4x better compute density versus a SIMD solution, and 1.4x the energy efficiency and 3.1x the compute density of an FPGA. However the cost of providing general programmability is still high: compared to an ASIC, CGRA has 6x worse energy and area efficiency, and this ratio would be roughly 10x if memory dominated applications were excluded.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009399783&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1109/MICRO.2016.7783755
DO - https://doi.org/10.1109/MICRO.2016.7783755
M3 - منشور من مؤتمر
T3 - Proceedings of the Annual International Symposium on Microarchitecture, MICRO
BT - MICRO 2016 - 49th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture
T2 - 49th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, MICRO 2016
Y2 - 15 October 2016 through 19 October 2016
ER -