Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 42 references

SYCL for Energy-Efficient Numerical Astrophysics: the case of DPEcho

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read GPUs deliver far more cell updates per joule than CPUs on a realistic GR-MHD workload, the paper shows, and argues that energy efficiency is the fairer metric for comparing hardware.

desk verdict A solid, honest benchmark study whose central claim about the intensiveness of MCUP/J is asserted, not tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.14117 v1 pith:XEOREKQF submitted 2025-08-18 astro-ph.IM cs.PF

Salvatore Cielo , Alexander Pöppl , Ivan Pribec This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMcs.PF
keywords energyefficiencySYCLGR-MHDGPUbenchmarkperformanceportabilityHPCcellupdatesperjoule
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that energy efficiency, measured as cell updates per joule, should be the primary metric for comparing compute devices, because it is not biased by device size the way raw performance is. Using the SYCL-based DPEcho benchmark, a realistic general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamics workload, the authors measured both performance and energy efficiency across a range of CPUs and GPUs. They find that GPUs have a significant advantage in energy efficiency, and that the ranking of devices can differ between the two metrics. The paper also shows that a portable SYCL implementation can run across vendors and that compiler choice matters for GPU performance. The goal is to help computational astrophysicists and HPC centers choose hardware with energy awareness in mind.

What carries the argument

The central object is DPEcho, an MPI+SYCL port of the ECHO finite-volume GR-MHD code, used as a realistic benchmark workload. The key mechanism is the energy-efficiency KPI: millions of cell updates per joule (MCUP/J), computed by integrating device-level power measurements over the run. The paper also presents deltaEnergy.sh, a shell-based tool that parses low-granularity power readings from any command-line tool and integrates them, making energy measurement portable across systems.

What would settle it

Run DPEcho on a single device with the same workload but two grid sizes differing by a factor of two, while keeping the per-device configuration otherwise identical; if the measured MCUP/J differs by more than the statistical uncertainty, the metric is not intensive and the cross-device comparisons are confounded by problem size.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that on the DPEcho GR-MHD workload, GPUs achieve substantially higher energy efficiency (millions of cell updates per joule) than CPUs, and that energy efficiency is a more informative key performance indicator than raw performance. The authors argue that energy efficiency is the ratio of two extensive quantities, operations performed and energy consumed, so it is an intensive measure that removes the bias introduced by device size. They support this with benchmark results across Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA hardware, showing that GPU advantage is amplified when measured in energy terms, and that within CPU generations, performance gains are sometimes accompanied by disproportionately larger power draw. They also demonstrate that a single SYCL codebase runs portably across these devices, and they introduce a flexible energy-measuring pipeline that can use various low-granularity power meters.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that cell updates per joule is an intensive quantity, meaning it stays the same regardless of how large a problem the device is given, so comparing devices at different problem sizes is fair.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If energy efficiency becomes a primary KPI, GPU-accelerated nodes would be preferred over CPU-only nodes for astrophysics workloads like GR-MHD, since they deliver more cell updates per joule.
  • Comparing devices by energy efficiency rather than raw performance changes the perceived generational progress of CPUs, because some newer CPUs increase performance at the cost of disproportionately higher power draw.
  • Compiler choice significantly affects GPU performance and efficiency: for example, the AdaptiveCpp compiler was found to be clearly recommended for running DPEcho on A100 GPUs compared to the Intel oneAPI compiler.
  • The disagreement between HPL-based energy rankings and DPEcho-based rankings shows that energy efficiency is application-dependent, and a realistic workload benchmark is needed to make informed hardware choices.
  • A portable SYCL implementation can cover a wide range of CPU and GPU hardware with a single source code, reducing the refactoring burden that currently slows GPU adoption in astrophysics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's argument that energy efficiency is intensive implies that energy-per-cell-update could be used as a vendor-neutral, application-specific figure of merit in procurement decisions, but this depends on the metric remaining constant across problem sizes.
  • The device-centric energy measurement (at the cores) versus node-level at-the-plug measurement could lead to different conclusions in multi-device nodes, since idle or auxiliary devices distort the node-level figure; future benchmarks may need to standardize which energy boundary is reported.
  • If the intensiveness of MCUP/J holds, then energy efficiency could be reported without normalizing to a device size, enabling direct comparison of heterogeneous devices and possibly even heterogeneous workloads on the same device.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper argues that computational astrophysics underuses GPU accelerators and that SYCL offers a portable, vendor-agnostic porting path. It presents DPEcho, an MPI+SYCL GR-MHD proxy application, and uses it to benchmark CPU and GPU devices on raw performance (MCUP/s) and energy efficiency (MCUP/J). The central finding is that GPUs achieve substantially higher cell updates per joule than CPUs. The paper also introduces a portable energy-measurement shell tool, compares results under two SYCL compilers, contrasts DPEcho with HPL on energy efficiency, and discusses device-centric versus at-the-plug energy measurements.

Significance. If the efficiency comparison is robust, the paper provides a useful, realistically grounded data point for HPC procurement and for astrophysicists considering SYCL-based GPU ports. The authors report direct measurements with medians, quartiles, and percentile bars, openly discuss compiler sensitivity and the difficulty of measuring energy, and make the code and measurement tool publicly available. The paper is also honest about several limitations, including the idealized MPI test problem and the latency of some power-measurement tools. However, the main quantitative claim depends on the assertion that MCUP/J is an intensive quantity independent of problem size, and that assertion is not empirically tested.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.1, §1, Fig. 2] The central comparison assumes that millions of cell updates per joule is an intensive device metric, so that running each device on a different problem size (the largest that fits in node memory) does not bias the ranking. No problem-size sweep is reported for any device. If fixed per-rank overheads (kernel-launch, MPI, occupancy, memory-system effects) do not amortize identically for CPUs and GPUs, the MCUP/J ranking could be an artifact of the chosen memory-filling grid sizes. Please add an explicit weak-scaling or fixed-size sweep on at least one CPU and one GPU to validate the intensiveness claim, or otherwise bound the effect of problem size on the reported ratios.
  2. [§2.2, Table 1] The energy measurement for CPUs explicitly excludes DRAM, while GPU board power measurements via vendor SMI tools include on-board HBM. Because the CPU and GPU runs use very different memory footprints and the workload is memory-bound, the device-centric energy metric may not be measuring comparable quantities across device types. The paper should clarify whether HBM power is included in the GPU numbers and discuss how this asymmetry affects the CPU-GPU comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1] The sentence 'then dive by the number of devices per node' should read 'divide by the number of devices per node'.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The phrase 'y axis, always higher' is unclear and appears inconsistent with the text, which says the at-the-plug measurement is the global one; please clarify which quantity is expected to be higher and why.
  3. [§1, first paragraph] The phrase 'viable porting paths have to be shown before first' is ungrammatical; rephrase.
  4. [Table 1] The Notes column entries such as '2 CPUs' mix node composition with per-device TDP; please state explicitly whether the listed TDP is per socket, per card, or per node.
  5. [§3, bullet list] 'GPU performance exhibit large variability' has a subject-verb agreement error; it should be 'exhibits'.
  6. [§4.1] The HPL comparison would be more reproducible if the source and date of the HPL/Green500 energy results were stated, since these rankings are updated periodically.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Direct measurement study with no circular derivation; the intensiveness claim is an interpretive assumption, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an empirical benchmark: it measures cell updates per second and cell updates per joule across heterogeneous devices using the DPEcho SYCL code. These KPIs are defined directly from measured quantities (cell updates, time, energy via device-specific counters), and no parameter is fitted to the data that is then renamed as a prediction. The argument that energy efficiency is an intensive quantity and therefore removes device-size bias is an interpretive claim used to justify the comparison protocol, not a step that derives the measured ranking from that assumption. The self-citations (Cielo et al. 2023 for the DPEcho setup and Cielo et al. 2022 for CPU energy/performance context) provide background and prior benchmark practice, but the present GPU-vs-CPU efficiency results do not reduce to those citations. The comparison with the HPL benchmark is an external reference point, and Appendix C reports weak-scaling data with explicit caveats. No specific equation or fitted parameter can be exhibited that makes the central claim equivalent to its inputs by construction; therefore the paper contains no significant circularity. Score 1 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the MCUP/J values are direct measurements. The central comparison depends on domain assumptions about representativeness and intensiveness, and on the choice to measure device-core energy rather than plug energy.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The DPEcho Alfvén wave test case is representative of numerical astrophysics workloads for the purpose of hardware efficiency comparison.
    The paper uses a single idealized periodic Alfvén wave problem and generalizes to numerical astrophysics. The authors themselves call the MPI scaling 'rather idealized' in Appendix C.
  • domain assumption Energy per cell update is an intensive quantity and does not depend on the problem size used on each device.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 when the problem size varies per device to fill node memory; asserted in the Introduction as 'the ratio of two extensive quantities' but not empirically tested across problem sizes.
  • domain assumption Device-core energy measurements, excluding memory and other node components, are the correct basis for comparing device efficiency.
    Sections 2.2 and 4.2 justify this choice but acknowledge that plug-level measurements give a different picture for some nodes, such as SPR with attached PVC GPUs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SYCL for Energy-Efficient Numerical Astrophysics: the case of DPEcho." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XEOREKQF

@misc{pith2026250814117,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SYCL for Energy-Efficient Numerical Astrophysics: the case of DPEcho},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XEOREKQF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14117}
}
read the original abstract

Energy awareness and efficiency policies are gaining more attention, over pure performance (time-to-solution) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) when comparing the possibilities offered by accelerated systems. But in a field such as numerical astrophysics, which is struggling with code refactorings for GPUs, viable porting paths have to be shown before first. After summarizing the status and recurring problems of astrophysical code accelerations, we highlight how the field would benefit from portable, vendor-agnostic GPU portings. We then employ the DPEcho SYCL benchmark to compare raw performance and energy efficiency for heterogeneous hardware on a realistic application, with the goal of helping computational astrophysicists and HPC providers make informed decisions on the most suitable hardware. Aside from GPUs showing higher efficiency, we argue on the more informative nature of energy-aware KPIs, in that they convey the specific device performance in a data-driven way. We also present a convenient, flexible and cross-platform energy-measuring pipeline. Finally, we contextualize our results through measures with different compilers, presenting device (at the cores) versus node (at the plug) energy and comparing DPEcho with the High- Performance Linpack (HPL) benchmark.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.14117 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Core-hours percentage allocated for astrophysics projects on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. First panel: DPEcho Performance - MCUPs (millions of cell updates) per second per device, for all hardware listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Similar to Figure 2, but comparing Intel oneAPI compiler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparing performance (first panel) and energy efficiency (second panel) for HPL (in grey) and DPEcho (in magenta). 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energy comparison between cores/package and plug node energy. We compare total node DC power consumption from EAR-user-db (x-axis) ver￾sus DPEcho’s internal energy measure, which targets only GPU/CPU compute cores with hardware-specific methods (y axis, always higher).…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , author P\' a ll, S

    author Alekseenko, A. , author P\' a ll, S. , author Lindahl, E. , year 2021 . title Experiences with adding sycl support to gromacs , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on OpenCL , publisher Association for Computing Machinery , address New York, NY, USA . :10.1145/3456669.3456690

    work page arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    , author P \'a ll , S

    author Alekseenko , A. , author P \'a ll , S. , author Lindahl , E. , year 2024 . title GROMACS on AMD GPU -Based HPC Platforms: Using SYCL for Performance and Portability . journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:2405.01420 :10.48550/arXiv.2405.01420, http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.01420 arXiv:2405.01420

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.01420 2024

  3. [3]

    MAESTRO, CASTRO, and SEDONA -- Petascale Codes for Astrophysical Applications

    author Almgren , A. , author Bell , J. , author Kasen , D. , author Lijewski , M. , author Nonaka , A. , author Nugent , P. , author Rendleman , C. , author Thomas , R. , author Zingale , M. , year 2010 . title MAESTRO, CASTRO, and SEDONA -- Petascale Codes for Astrophysical Applications . journal arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv:1008.2801 :10.48550/arXiv.100...

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1008.2801 2010

  4. [4]

    , author Heuveline, V

    author Alpay, A. , author Heuveline, V. , year 2023 . title One pass to bind them: The first single-pass sycl compiler with unified code representation across backends , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 2023 International Workshop on OpenCL , publisher Association for Computing Machinery , address New York, NY, USA . :10.1145/3585341.3585351

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    , author Federrath, C

    author Beattie, J.R. , author Federrath, C. , author Klessen, R.S. , author Cielo, S. , author Bhattacharjee, A. , year 2024 . title Magnetized compressible turbulence with a fluctuation dynamo and reynolds numbers over a million . https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16626, http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16626 arXiv:2405.16626

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    , author Zhang, G

    author B \' e gu \' e , D. , author Zhang, G. , author Li, X. , author Pe'er, A. , year 2023 . title cuHARM : A new GPU -accelerated GRMHD code and its application to ADAF disks . journal The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series volume 264 , pages 32

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    , author Mignone, A

    author Berta, V. , author Mignone, A. , author Bugli, M. , author Mattia, G. , year 2024 . title A 4th-order accurate finite volume method for ideal classical and special relativistic mhd based on pointwise reconstructions . journal Journal of Computational Physics volume 499 , pages 112701 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002199912300...

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    , author Iapichino, L

    author Cielo, S. , author Iapichino, L. , author Baruffa, F. , author Bugli, M. , author Federrath, C. , year 2020 . title Honing and proofing astrophysical codes on the road to exascale. experiences from code modernization on many-core systems . journal Future Generation Computer Systems volume 112 , pages 93--107 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2020.05.003 2020

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    , author P\" o ppl, A

    author Cielo, S. , author P\" o ppl, A. , author Zanna, L.D. , author Bugli, M. , year 2023 . title Dpecho: General relativity with sycl for the 2020s and beyond . journal Intel Parallel Universe Magazine https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/dpe...

    2023

  2. [10]

    , author Porth, O

    author Cielo, S. , author Porth, O. , author Iapichino, L. , author Karmakar, A. , author Olivares, H. , author Xia, C. , year 2022 . title Optimizing the hybrid parallelization of bhac . journal Astronomy and Computing volume 38 , pages 100509 . :https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asc...

    2022

  3. [11]

    , author Alonso, L

    author Corbalan, J. , author Alonso, L. , author Aneas, J. , author Brochard, L. , year 2020 . title Energy optimization and analysis with ear , in: booktitle 2020 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing (CLUSTER) , pp. pages 464--472 . :10.1109/CLUSTER49012.2020.00067

    2020

  4. [12]

    , author Alonso, L

    author Corbalan, J. , author Alonso, L. , author Navarrete, C. , author Guillen, C. , year 2022 . title Soft cluster powercap at supermuc-ng with ear , in: booktitle 2022 IEEE 13th International Green and Sustainable Computing Conference (IGSC) , pp. pages 1--8 . :10.1109/IGSC...

    2022

  5. [13]

    , author Landi, S

    author Del Zanna, L. , author Landi, S. , author Serafini, L. , author Bugli, M. , author Papini, E. , year 2024 . title A GPU -accelerated modern fortran version of the echo code for relativistic magnetohydrodynamics . journal Fluids volume 9 . https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5521/...

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    , author Zanotti, O

    author Del Zanna , L. , author Zanotti, O. , author Bucciantini, N. , author Londrillo, P. , year 2007 . title ECHO : a eulerian conservative high-order scheme for general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics and magnetodynamics . journal Astronomy & Astrophysics volume 473 , pag...

    2007

  7. [15]

    , year 2002

    author Dongarra, J. , year 2002 . title Performance of various computers using standard linear equations software . journal Computer Architecture News volume 20 . :10.1145/141868.141871

    2002

  8. [16]

    , author Gunnels, J

    author Dongarra, J. , author Gunnels, J. , author Bayraktar, H. , author Haidar, A. , author Ernst, D. , year 2024 . title Hardware trends impacting floating-point computations in scientific applications . https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12090, http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12090 arXiv...

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    , author Heroux, M

    author Dongarra, J. , author Heroux, M. , author Luszczek, P. , year 2016 . title A new metric for ranking high performance computing systems . journal National Science Review volume 3 , pages nwv084 . :10.1093/nsr/nwv084

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    , author Keyes, D

    author Dongarra, J. , author Keyes, D. , year 2024 . title The co-evolution of computational physics and high-performance computing . journal Nature Reviews Physics volume 6 , pages 621--627 . :10.1038/s42254-024-00750-z

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    , author Luszczek, P

    author Dongarra, J. , author Luszczek, P. , author Petitet, A. , year 2003 . title The linpack benchmark: past, present and future . journal Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience volume 15 , pages 803--820 . :10.1002/cpe.728

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    , author Schr \"o n , M

    author Federrath , C. , author Schr \"o n , M. , author Banerjee , R. , author Klessen , R.S. , year 2014 . title Modeling jet and outflow feedback during star cluster formation . journal apj volume 790 , pages 128 . :10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/128, http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3625...

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    , author LeGendre, M

    author Gamblin, T. , author LeGendre, M. , author Collette, M.R. , author Lee, G.L. , author Moody, A. , author de Supinski, B.R. , author Futral, S. , year 2015 . title The spack package manager: bringing order to HPC software chaos , in: booktitle Proceedings of the Internat...

    2015

  14. [22]

    title hemelb-codes

    author HemeLB , year 2022 . title hemelb-codes . https://github.com/hemelb-codes

    2022

  15. [23]

    , year 2023

    author Herten, A. , year 2023 . title Many cores, many models: Gpu programming model vs. vendor compatibility overview , in: booktitle Proceedings of the SC '23 Workshops of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Network, Storage, and Analysis , publisher ...

    2023

  16. [24]

    , author Kitayama, Y

    author Kashino, R. , author Kitayama, Y. , author Matsumura, K. , author Iitaka, T. , author Nakajima, K. , year 2022 . title Multi-hetero acceleration by GPU and FPGA for astrophysics simulation on oneAPI environment , in: booktitle International Conference on High Performanc...

    2022

  17. [25]

    , year 2024

    author Lesur, G.R.J. , year 2024 . title The idefix code: Looking back at the development of an exascale code, from design to production on pre-exascale clusters . howpublished TERA24 - Towards Exascale-Ready Astrophyiscs . https://download.fz-juelich.de/jsc/tera24-lectures/te...

    2024

  18. [26]

    , author Baghdadi, S

    author Lesur, G.R.J. , author Baghdadi, S. , author Wafflard-Fernandez, G. , author Mauxion, J. , author Robert, C.M.T. , author Van den Bossche, M. , year 2023 . title Idefix: A versatile performance-portable godunov code for astrophysical flows . journal Astronomy & Astrophy...

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    , author Deakin, T

    author Lin, W.C. , author Deakin, T. , author McIntosh-Smith, S. , year 2022 . title Evaluating iso c++ parallel algorithms on heterogeneous HPC systems , in: booktitle 2022 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Performance Modeling, Benchmarking and Simulation of High Performanc...

    2022

  20. [28]

    , author Chatterjee, K

    author Liska, M.T.P. , author Chatterjee, K. , author T \' o th, G. , author Van Der Holst, B. , author Porth, O. , author Musoke, G. , author Bouman, K.L. , author Schellenberger, G. , author Bogovalov, S.V. , author Markoff, S. , et al., year 2022 . title H-AMR : A new GPU -...

    2022

  21. [29]

    , author Cesare, V

    author Malenza, G. , author Cesare, V. , author Aldinucci, M. , author Becciani, U. , author Vecchiato, A. , year 2024 a. title Toward HPC application portability via c++ pstl: the gaia avu-gsr code assessment . journal The Journal of Supercomputing volume 80 , pages 14369--14...

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    , author Vecchiato, A

    author Malenza, G. , author Vecchiato, A. , author Bianchi, L. , author Messineo, R. , author Gai, M. , author Busonero, D. , author Messineo, S. , year 2024 b. title Performance portability via C++ PSTL , SYCL , OpenMP , and HIP : the Gaia AVU-GSR case study , in: booktitle S...

    2024

  23. [31]

    , year 2022

    author Moffat, K. , year 2022 . title Syclomatic: A new CUDA -to- SYCL code migration tool . journal The Parallel Universe Magazine https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/news/parallel-universe-magazine/issue-49-august-2022.html

    2022

  24. [32]

    , author Springel, V

    author Pakmor, R. , author Springel, V. , author Coles, J.P. , author Guillet, T. , author Pfrommer, C. , author Bose, S. , author Barrera, M. , author Delgado, A.M. , author Ferlito, F. , author Frenk, C. , author Hadzhiyska, B. , author Hernández-Aguayo, C. , author Hernquis...

    2023

  25. [33]

    , author B \' e gu \' e , D

    author Pe'er, A. , author B \' e gu \' e , D. , author Zhang, G. , year 2023 . title Study accretion and ejection using a new gpu-accelerated grmhd code . journal Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union volume 19 , pages 112--116

    2023

  26. [34]

    , author Sewall, J.D

    author Pennycook, S.J. , author Sewall, J.D. , year 2021 . title Revisiting a metric for performance portability , in: booktitle 2021 International Workshop on Performance, Portability and Productivity in HPC (P3HPC) , pp. pages 1--9 . :10.1109/P3HPC54578.2021.00004

    2021

  27. [35]

    , author Frontiere, N

    author Rangel, E.M. , author Frontiere, N. , author Gunderson, A. , author Heitmann, K. , author Habib, S. , author Vikram, V. , year 2023 . title A performance-portable SYCL implementation of CRK-HACC for exascale , in: booktitle Proceedings of the SC'23 Workshops of the Inte...

    2023

  28. [36]

    , author Su, S

    author Servat, H. , author Su, S. , author Kloeffel, T. , author Caplan, R. , year 2024 . title On the migration of openacc api to openmp api . journal The Parallel Universe Magazine https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/migration-of-openacc-api-...

    2024

  29. [37]

    , author Yousefi, M

    author Shealy, B.T. , author Yousefi, M. , author Srinath, A.T. , author Smith, M.C. , author Schiller, U.D. , year 2021 . title GPU acceleration of the hemelb code for lattice boltzmann simulations in sparse complex geometries . journal IEEE Access volume 9 , pages 61224--612...

    2021

  30. [38]

    , author Mullen, P.D

    author Stone, J.M. , author Mullen, P.D. , author Fielding, D. , author Grete, P. , author Guo, M. , author Kempski, P. , author Most, E.R. , author White, C.J. , author Wong, G.N. , year 2024 . title Athenak: A performance-portable version of the athena++ amr framework . http...

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    , author Bockelmann, H

    author Suarez, E. , author Bockelmann, H. , author Eicker, N. , author Eitzinger, J. , author El Sayed, S. , author Fieseler, T. , author Frank, M. , author Frech, P. , author Giesselmann, P. , author Hackenberg, D. , author Hager, G. , author Herten, A. , author Ilsche, T. , ...

    2025

  32. [40]

    , author Tornatore, L

    author Taffoni, G. , author Tornatore, L. , author Goz, D. , author Ragagnin, A. , author Bertocco, S. , author Coretti, I. , author Marazakis, M. , author Chaix, F. , author Plumidis, M. , author Katevenis, M. , author Panchieri, R. , author Perna, G. , year 2019 . title Towa...

    2019

  33. [41]

    , author Lebrun-Grandié, D

    author Trott, C.R. , author Lebrun-Grandié, D. , author Arndt, D. , author Ciesko, J. , author Dang, V. , author Ellingwood, N. , author Gayatri, R. , author Harvey, E. , author Hollman, D.S. , author Ibanez, D. , author Liber, N. , author Madsen, J. , author Miles, J. , autho...

    2022

  34. [42]

    , author Almgren, A

    author Zhang, W. , author Almgren, A. , author Beckner, V. , author Bell, J. , author Blaschke, J. , author Chan, C. , author Day, M. , author Friesen, B. , author Gott, K. , author Graves, D. , author Katz, M. , author Myers, A. , author Nguyen, T. , author Nonaka, A. , autho...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.