{"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.