Benchmarking In-Memory Computing Architectures

Naresh R. Shanbhag;Saion K. Roy
{"title":"Benchmarking In-Memory Computing Architectures","authors":"Naresh R. Shanbhag;Saion K. Roy","doi":"10.1109/OJSSCS.2022.3210152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In-memory computing (IMC) architectures have emerged as a compelling platform to implement energy-efficient machine learning (ML) systems. However, today, the energy efficiency gains provided by IMC designs seem to be leveling off and it is not clear what the limiting factors are. The conceptual complexity of IMCs combined with the absence of a rigorous benchmarking methodology makes it difficult to gauge progress and identify bottlenecks in this exciting field. This article presents a benchmarking methodology for IMCs comprising: 1) a compositional view of IMCs that enables one to parse an IMC design into its canonical components; 2) a set of benchmarking metrics to quantify the performance, efficiency, and accuracy of IMCs; and 3) a strategy for analyzing the reported IMC data and metrics. We apply the proposed benchmarking methodology on an extensive database of IMC metrics extracted from > 70 IC designs published since 2018, in order to infer and comprehend trends in this area. Our benchmarking effort indicates: 1) SRAM-based IMCs show a clear win in terms of energy efficiency and compute density over digital accelerators at the bank level but the energy efficiency gap reduces dramatically when comparing at the processor level; 2) eNVM-based IMCs lag behind SRAM-based IMCs in terms of both energy efficiency and compute density, and surprisingly lag digital accelerators in terms of compute density; 3) the compute (bank-level) accuracy of IMCs, though a critical metric, is pervasively neglected in publications as is the energy versus accuracy tradeoff inherent to IMCs.","PeriodicalId":100633,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Open Journal of the Solid-State Circuits Society","volume":"2 ","pages":"288-300"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel7/8782712/9733783/09976888.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Open Journal of the Solid-State Circuits Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9976888/","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

In-memory computing (IMC) architectures have emerged as a compelling platform to implement energy-efficient machine learning (ML) systems. However, today, the energy efficiency gains provided by IMC designs seem to be leveling off and it is not clear what the limiting factors are. The conceptual complexity of IMCs combined with the absence of a rigorous benchmarking methodology makes it difficult to gauge progress and identify bottlenecks in this exciting field. This article presents a benchmarking methodology for IMCs comprising: 1) a compositional view of IMCs that enables one to parse an IMC design into its canonical components; 2) a set of benchmarking metrics to quantify the performance, efficiency, and accuracy of IMCs; and 3) a strategy for analyzing the reported IMC data and metrics. We apply the proposed benchmarking methodology on an extensive database of IMC metrics extracted from > 70 IC designs published since 2018, in order to infer and comprehend trends in this area. Our benchmarking effort indicates: 1) SRAM-based IMCs show a clear win in terms of energy efficiency and compute density over digital accelerators at the bank level but the energy efficiency gap reduces dramatically when comparing at the processor level; 2) eNVM-based IMCs lag behind SRAM-based IMCs in terms of both energy efficiency and compute density, and surprisingly lag digital accelerators in terms of compute density; 3) the compute (bank-level) accuracy of IMCs, though a critical metric, is pervasively neglected in publications as is the energy versus accuracy tradeoff inherent to IMCs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
内存计算体系结构基准测试
内存计算(IMC)体系结构已成为实现节能机器学习(ML)系统的一个引人注目的平台。然而,如今,IMC设计提供的能效收益似乎趋于平稳,目前尚不清楚限制因素是什么。IMCs的概念复杂性,加上缺乏严格的基准测试方法,使衡量这一令人兴奋的领域的进展和确定瓶颈变得困难。本文提出了一种IMC的基准测试方法,包括:1)IMC的组合视图,使人们能够将IMC设计解析为其规范组件;2) 一组基准衡量标准,用于量化IMC的性能、效率和准确性;以及3)用于分析所报告的IMC数据和度量的策略。我们将所提出的基准测试方法应用于从2018年以来发布的70多个IC设计中提取的IMC指标的广泛数据库,以推断和理解该领域的趋势。我们的基准测试工作表明:1)在银行层面,基于SRAM的IMC在能效和计算密度方面明显优于数字加速器,但在处理器层面相比,能效差距显著缩小;2) 基于eNVM的IMC在能效和计算密度方面都落后于基于SRAM的IMC,并且在计算密度方面令人惊讶地落后于数字加速器;3) IMC的计算(银行级)精度虽然是一个关键指标,但在出版物中普遍被忽视,IMC固有的能量与精度的权衡也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Problem of Spurious Emissions in 5G FR2 Phased Arrays, and a Solution Based on an Upmixer With Embedded LO Leakage Cancellation SAR-Assisted Energy-Efficient Hybrid ADCs Systematic Equation-Based Design of a 10-Bit, 500-MS/s Single-Channel SAR A/D Converter With 2-GHz Resolution Bandwidth Digital Phase-Locked Loops: Exploring Different Boundaries 8-Shaped Inductors: An Essential Addition to RFIC Designers’ Toolbox
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1