cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
sturmel2007
Visitor
Visitor
4,215 Views
Registered: ‎07-06-2017

Vivado linux vs windows benchmark

Jump to solution

Some one as bechmark that show the difference of performance between Linux and Windows when synthesing with Vivado?

0 Kudos
Reply
36 Replies
frederi
Xilinx Employee
Xilinx Employee
737 Views
Registered: ‎03-29-2013

@markcurry: parallel synthesis does not kick in when the design is too small (no compile time gain) or when complex timing constraints are applied to the design. This last condition should be addressed in the coming Vivado release (2019.2).

0 Kudos
Reply
markcurry
Scholar
Scholar
734 Views
Registered: ‎09-16-2009

@frederi 

Thanks for the info.  We're the latter case (complex timing constraints) I assume. We'll be waiting to see what Vivado 2019.2 offers us in this regard.

--Mark

0 Kudos
Reply
frederi
Xilinx Employee
Xilinx Employee
733 Views
Registered: ‎03-29-2013

Hi @sturmel2007 : it looks like you have misinterpreted the content of https://www.xilinx.com/products/design-tools/vivado/memory.html. This page shows that system memory guidelines are the same for Windows and Linux. For each device, there is a typical memory utilization (average design with average timing constraints complexity), and a peak memory utilization (maximum observed by Xilinx on a large set of designs, due to high utilization, congestion, complex timing constraints, etc...).

0 Kudos
Reply
frederi
Xilinx Employee
Xilinx Employee
723 Views
Registered: ‎03-29-2013

@sturmel2007: thanks for your faith :)! Unfortunately, this is not something Xilinx spends time on. I'll restate the reasoning behind it:

1) There are too many different systems to benchmark. Xilinx focuses on release to release compile time comparison for a same system & OS, and whenever needed, competitive analysis as well.

2) Windows vs Linux performance differences are not unique to Vivado or any Xilinx tools. General information on this topic should be available on the web. Linux is generally more efficient as it is a leaner OS with fewer extra services/processes burning compute resources (firewall, disk encryption, web browsers, etc...).

I hope this closes this thread. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and findings!

0 Kudos
Reply
sturmel2007
Visitor
Visitor
687 Views
Registered: ‎07-06-2017

@frederi 

Your right.

Thanks to all.

I learned a lot to make this investigation :-)

Best regards!

cnegrea
Visitor
Visitor
330 Views
Registered: ‎05-27-2019

Hi, still a beginner, but i have tested recently Vivado2019.2 on a very good machine, a Dell T7600, two Xeon E2687w, 3.1Ghz, 128Gb RAM, so i have 16 cores, 32 threads. I had a project for the Nexys Video that took 8:40 minutes an a Lenovo i5 2520M machine (T420). 

The results:

5:40 on WIndows 10

5:20 on Windows 7

5:00 on CentOS 7.

The strange thing, i can choose 32 jobs even in Windows, but the hard and longest job is done in only one core, 100%. I never had more than 6% processor usage and more than 16 Gb RAM.

Sorry for my crude benchmark, but i gave up, i think the only improvement is due to the clock difference, 3.1Ghz, vs. 2.5Ghz. 

0 Kudos
Reply
drjohnsmith
Teacher
Teacher
295 Views
Registered: ‎07-09-2009

Just a quick one,

The problem is the same as all software, trying to split an algorithm across multiple cores.
n one has "yet" made an algorithm that can be split into separate individual parts to optimise and fit a chip.

If you crack that you will make a fortune,


Historical , its been faster to run a Virtual Machine on a computer,

    and on that run an OS that you run Vivado on.

<== If this was helpful, please feel free to give Kudos, and close if it answers your question ==>
0 Kudos
Reply