SPEC/GWPG
Benchmarks
Download/Order
SPEC
Mirror Sites
Resources
|
The
Graphics and Workstation Performance Group (SPEC/GWPG):
Rules For Project Groups
Version 1.15
Last
Updated: 09/23/2014
- Overview
- Project Groups and Scope of Rules
- Three project groups exist under the umbrella
of SPEC/GWPG:
- The Graphics Performance Characterization
Project Group (henceforth abbreviated as
SPECgpcSM)
- The Application Performance Characterization
Project Group (henceforth abbreviated as
SPECapcSM)
- The Workstation Performance Characterization
Project Group (henceforth abbreviated as
SPECwpcSM)
- The rules contained in this document shall apply
to all three project groups (SPECgpc,SPECapc and
SPECwpc).
- Each project group shall maintain its own project
group rules document, which shall apply in conjunction
with this document.
- Where a project group's rule overrides a rule
in this document, this will be explicitly indicated
in that project group's rule document.
- Should a new project group be approved or an
existing one dissolved, this document shall be
updated accordingly.
- Membership
- Membership
- Membership in the SPEC/GWPG and its project groups
is open to any organization that has a direct
and/or material interest in graphics or workstation-related
application performance benchmarking..
- Membership in one or more SPEC/GWPG project groups
leads to membership inSPEC/GWPG.
- Members are expected but not required to be active
participants developing and improving the respective
project group's benchmarks.
- Members are entitled to secure access to development
code.
- Members are entitled to unlimited publication
rights.
- New members become eligible for voting on the
2nd consecutive qualified meeting. The first qualified
meeting may have been attended prior to becoming
a member. Qualified meetings are defined in Section
II.4.b.
- A member maintains voting rights by attending
1 out of the last 3 qualified meetings. A member
loses their voting rights upon missing 2 consecutive
qualified meetings.
- A member regains voting rights on attending a
second consecutive qualified meeting.
- For a qualified meeting for which attendance
in person is expected, attending remotely (e.g.
by telephone) does not count as qualified attendance.
- Voting status is lost if the organization fails
to remit payment for membership fees or annual
dues. Voting status is restored by payment of
these fees or dues.
- Associate Status
- Associate status is available to non-profit organizations.
- All rights and rules of the respective project
group, GWPG and SPEC apply to Associates unless
specifically stated otherwise.
- Associates are entitled to secure access to development
code.
- Associates do not have voting rights.
- Officers and Elections
- On an annual basis the project groups will elect
from their eligible voting memberships the following
officers:
- Chairperson
- Vice Chairperson
- Secretary
- The Chairperson's responsibilities are to
- conduct meetings,
- send out the agenda on time,
- conduct votes on time,
- deal with outside organizations such as
the press,
- represent and respond on behalf of the
group to external questions and queries,
- interact with the SPEC/GWPG committee,
and
- police the submission, review and appeal
process.
- The Vice-Chairperson's responsibility is to do
the chairperson's job when the chairperson is
not available, or if the chairperson is subject
to a conflict of interest.
- The Secretary's responsibilities are to:
- record minutes,
- maintain the rules document,
- keep a history of email.
- If an officer is subject to a conflict of interest
in pursuance of his or her duties and if any defined
succession of responsibility would fail to resolve
the conflict of interest, the committee may appoint
any committee member to fulfill that officer's
duties for the scope of the discussion in which
the conflict of interest exists.
- Meetings
- SPEC/GWPG project groups have three types of
meetings (not including ad-hoc working-group meetings)
- Regular quarterly face-to-face meetings
- Special face-to-face meetings for the full
membership
- Conference-call meetings
- Meetings which qualify for attendance are limited
to:
- face-to-face meetings scheduled at least
one month in advance and
- conference calls scheduled at least two
weeks in advance and which are explicitly
indicated as qualified at least two weeks
in advance.
- Voting
- Issues may be designated for resolution by ballot
by voting members of the GWPG or Subcommittee.
Ballot may be by standard mail, by electronic
means, conference call voice ballot or a combination
of any of the three. A ballot is deemed valid
if a quorum of eligible voting organizations returns
ballots. Voting is Approved, Approved with Comment,
Disapproved with Comment, or Abstained with Comment.
Disapproval and Abstained votes require comment
on the nature of the vote.
- A valid vote requires a quorum. A quorum is met
if at least 66% of eligible voting members respond.
- Membership Dues and Billing
- Dues are assessed on the basis of membership
in SPEC/GWPG's project groups.
- Dues for the SPEC/GWPG project groups will be
set annually by the SPEC Board of Directors with
input from the SPEC/GWPG. Once set, the dues amount
will be recorded in the SPEC minutes and communicated
to the SPEC/GWPG by the SPEC office.
- Dues payment, purchase order or letter of intent
to pay for a given calendar year must be received
at the SPEC office by March 1st of that year.
Alternatively, a letter of intent to join the
respective project group must be received by the
SPEC office by March 1st of that year with a subsequent
dues payment by May 1st of that year. Failure
to meet these deadlines will result in loss of
membership and voting rights. Membership will
be reinstated when full payment is received at
the SPEC office. Voting rights will be reinstated
according to the attendance rules in section II.1.g
and II.1.h.
- Non-Member Publication
- The SPEC/GWPG project groups will accept submissions
from non-members for review and publication on
the SPEC public website.
- Non-member submissions must follow the same rules
and procedures as member submissions.
- Non-members are not eligible to participate in
reviewing results.
- Non-members will be charged for their submissions
according to an approved fee structure. Any change
in hardware or software constitutes a new configuration.
- On an annual basis the SPEC/GWPG will establish
the pricing and periods for non-member publication.
These will be recorded in the SPEC/GWPG minutes
and published on the GWPG web-site.
- Following acceptance by the assigned reviewers,
a non-member's submission will not be published
until the SPEC office has received the submission
fee in full.
- The SPEC office will not deposit funds provided
by the non-member submitter until the submission
has been accepted by the assigned reviewers.
- A configuration will be published on-line for
six months, unless the submitter notifies the
publisher that it should be removed.
- After six months, the configuration will be removed
automatically, unless the submitter notifies the
publisher that it should remain on-line.
- There are no additional non-member fees for extending
on-line publication beyond six months.
- Each SPEC/GWPG project group may remove published
results from its web pages due to benchmark revision.
In this case, the submitter will be given notice
by the project group and may, at no charge, resubmit
the identical configuration for the revised benchmark.
- Benchmarks
- Each project group shall document all benchmark-related
rules in its respective project group rules document.
- Submission and Review Rules
- Submission Preparation Rules
- The rules for the submission and review cycle
to be used are those approved by the respective
project group's committee prior to the submission
deadline. The approved rules must be posted to
the respective project group's web-site by the
first publication date for the benchmark.
- Version compliance: The benchmark and (where
applicable) application versions to be used are
those approved by the respective project group's
committee prior to the submission deadline. The
approved benchmark (and application) versions
must be posted to the respective project group's
web-site by the first publication date for the
benchmark.
- All benchmark sources for a submission must be
the same as that approved by the respective project
group's committee prior to the submission deadline.
The approved benchmark sources must be posted
to the respective project group's web-site by
the first publication date for the benchmark.
- Submission Content Rules
- The submitter must provide a valid name and contact
email address.
- The information supplied must reflect the system
as tested.
- Configuration description: All fields in a submission's
results file must be supplied, unless the field
names are marked "opt.", indicating
an optional field.
- Date fields must always contain a valid date. "Now" is
not valid in a date field.
- The submitter is required to declare sufficient
information to reproduce the performance claimed.
This includes but is not limited to:
- non-default environment variables,
- non-default registry variables,
- system BIOS or firmware version,
- hints,
- compiler name and version,
- compiler command line,
- changes to the standard makefiles.
- Any information required to be reported such
as non-default environment variables, registry
variables or hints, that does not have a predefined
field must be documented in the
"Comments" area of the results page.
- Valid submissions must include screen captures
if required by the benchmark.
- Results previously published for a system can
be resubmitted. Resubmissions do not require the
inclusion of screen capture images.
- Previously published results being re-submitted
can only have price changes.
- Each member company must ensure that the upload
file contains data for all the new configurations
and existing published configurations they wish
to continue publishing.
- Standardized CPU nomenclature is as follows:
- CPU / Processor: a physical package containing
one or more cores.
- Socket
– Receptacle or physical connection
between processors and the system.
- Core: set of execution units which completely
implement the instruction set of a processor
architecture and are capable of running
one or more threads.
- Thread: Processor-directed sequence of
instructions
- All processors in the system, the number
of their cores and the number of threads
(if more than one) a core can execute must
be disclosed in the system description whether
or not they are directly enabled by system
software or application software. If different
from the number physically present, the
number of processors, cores and threads
enabled must also be disclosed.
- Standardized CPU cache nomenclature is as follows:
- (D+I) designates a unified instruction
and data cache
- (D/I) designates separate instruction and
data caches
- A number followed by KB or MB can be used
to describe the size of the cache.
- Caches dedicated to a processor are listed
as per processor cache size.
- Caches shared by multiple processors are
listed by total size
- Each component of the submitted configuration
(including the graphics driver) shall be:
- uniquely identified,
- available to members of the respective
project group, upon demand, by the submission
deadline and for the duration of the review
process,
- verifiably available to the public by the
publication date, with sufficient information
in the comment field to enable users to
directly obtain this component.
- Subsequent to publication, any change to or replacement
of elements for a submitted configuration must
not result in more than a 5% performance degradation
in the submitted benchmark results. Upon demonstration
of such a degradation, the submitted results for
this configuration will be removed from the SPEC
public website.
- On or before the date of publication, the submitted
configuration shall be available for purchase
by the public with a firm delivery date of 60
days or less. For all benchmarks, the submitted
result file must contain the exact performance
results as generated by the benchmark. Fields
carrying performance results may not be altered.
- Submission Process Rules
- Each benchmark is considered a separate submission.
- Submissions of each benchmark's results (e.g.
Maya6.5™, Solidworks 2007™, SPECviewperf,
etc.) must be in separate tar/zip files.
- A submitter of benchmark results must upload
his or her submission to the proper server location
by the submission deadline date and time. The
submitter must not create any new directories
on the server when uploading the submission.
- The submitter must notify SPEC Office after a
submission is uploaded to the server prior to
the submission deadline with contact information
for questions about the submission.
- The submitter must contact the SPEC office if
they have attempted to upload their submission
and were not successful.
- The SPEC office will not disclose who has submitted
results until the submission deadline has passed.
- Submissions will not be accepted after the submission
deadline.
- The upload directory will be set to write-only
until the submission deadline has passed. Then
it is set to read-write (not modify) after the
submission deadline.
- If a submitter is notified that their submission
format is incorrect, they must re-send their submission
in proper format within 3 business days of notification.
- Review Period Rules
- SPEC/GWPG project group members shall keep all
submitted results confidential to the respective
project group until those results appear on the
public SPEC web site. The exception to this rule
is that members are free to make their own submitted
results public at any time.
- The project group chair assigns reviewers for
submissions. Reviewers must acknowledge the assignment
by email to the project group alias. If no acknowledgments
are received by end of the second day of the review
period, the project group chair will reassign
reviewers.
- Members who wish not to review the submission
of other specific members due to conflict of interest
must submit that list to the project group chair
prior to the submission deadline. The project
group chair will hold the list in confidence from
other members.
- The various SPECapc, SPECgpc and SPECwpc pools
of eligible reviewers will be independent of each
other. The project group chair will send the list
of contact information for the submissions under
review.
- All members will have access to all benchmark
submissions once the review period begins.
- The review period shall be 5 calendar days, unless
a special revision is voted upon by SPEC/GWPG
members.
- Submissions cannot be withdrawn during the review
period without cause and without prior approval
of the primary reviewer. A submitter who is granted
permission to withdraw a submission must inform
the committee by email of the reason for withdrawal.
- If a primary reviewer has a question with a submission
he or she must pose the question to the submitter
first. The primary reviewer may also pose questions
to the respective project group's officers or
SPEC/GWPG Chair for clarification of rules if
needed.
- Any reviewer who has one or more questions relating
to a submission must:
- Pose the question(s) to the submitter and
cc the primary reviewer, OR
- Pose the question(s) to the primary reviewer.
The primary reviewer must then pose the
question(s) to the submitter, OR
- Pose the question(s) to an officer of the
respective project group. The officer must
then pose the question(s) to the submitter
and cc the primary reviewer.
- With permission of the primary reviewer, as communicated
through the respective project group's email alias,
the submitter can request that his or her submission
be rejected on stated technical grounds.
- With permission of the primary reviewer, as communicated
through the respective project group's email alias,
a submitter may resubmit a submission to resolve
issues found during the review process. The submitter
must notify the respective project group's mailing
list with the date and version of the resubmitted
file(s).
- The submitter must provide the primary reviewer
access to the system under test at the submitter's
facilities if requested by the reviewer during
the review period. The reviewer must state prior
to the visit what part of the submission is going
to be verified. Travel expenses are the responsibility
of the reviewer.
- By the end of the review period, the primary
reviewer of a submission must designate the status
of the submission one of:
“accepted without comment”, "accepted
with comment", “pending with comment”,
or “rejected with comment”. The submitter
may appeal a rejection as described in "Review
Appeal Rules" below.
- Any comments for rejection of a submission received
after the end of the review period will not delay
publication of the submission.
- A submission designated “pending with
comment” will not go public and will
remain pending until the submitter addresses
all comments. Once the comments are addressed
the web master will post to the public site.
Any member who feels comments are not satisfactorily
addressed may challenge the submission according
to Section IV.6 for challenging approved results.
- If a submitter repeatedly makes submissions that
are non-compliant or which do not address concerns
identified in the previously-assigned reviewers'
rejection comments, the reviewer may engage the
committee to solicit appropriate action, which
may be up to and including an embargo on submissions
from that submitter for a period of time.
- Review Appeal Rules
- The appeal period shall have the same duration
as one submission cycle, and shall immediately
follow the review period.
- Any submitter of a rejected submission can make
their case to the respective project group's email
alias during the appeal period.
- At the end of the appeal period, if there is
no resolution, the project group Chair shall call
a vote to accept or reject the submission.
- The project group electorate votes on accepting
or rejecting an appealed submission. A simple
majority is required to accept or reject the appeal.
In case of a tie the submission is rejected.
- Challenging Accepted Results
- Any member may challenge accepted results at
any time. This includes:
- archived results,
- currently published results, and
- resubmitted results not subject to the
regular submission review process.
- The burden of proof that the result should be
modified is on the member who is challenging the
result.
- The challenge must be ratified by a majority
vote of the project group's electorate.
- The project group Chair will call a special review
cycle for a resubmission in the event that there
is a ratified challenge to currently published
results.
- A ratified challenge to archived results can
only result in annotation, not removal or modification.
The annotation will be determined by the majority
of the electorate. It is the responsibility of
the challenger to verify that the results have
been annotated correctly on the public website
within two working days from the ratification
of the challenge.
- Publication Rules
- Official Publication
- Benchmark results for publication by the SPECgpc,
SPECapc or SPECwpc must adhere to Articles concerning "Overview", "Benchmark
Run Rules" and "Submission and Review
Rules" as presented in this document AND
the respective project group's rules document.
- Unofficial Publication
- Benchmark results for publication elsewhere (e.g.
industry journals, vendor web sites, analyst reports)
must adhere to Articles concerning "Overview" and "Benchmark
Run Rules"
as presented in this document AND the respective
project group's rules document.
- The respective project group or any member thereof
reserve the right to request and receive evidence
that the published results have been achieved
in accordance with the rules and that published
information is accurate.
-
SPECgpc, SPECapc
or SPECwpc metrics may be estimated. Metrics
shall not be estimated for configurations that
are capable of running the benchmark. All estimated
metrics must be clearly identified as estimated.
Licensees are encouraged to publish actual
SPECgpc, SPECapc or SPECwpc metrics as soon
as possible.
|
Adoption
V1.15 adopted
on 9/23/2014 (removal of pricing and single/multiple supplier
rules, addition of SPECwpc, revision of reviewer assignment responsibility)
V1.14 adopted
on 05/14/2012 (new rule IV.2.a, changed rule IV.2.g, and changed
wording IV.2.t/u)
V1.13 adopted
on 04/21/2010 (edited rule IV.2.p.iii, and removed duplicate
rule (was IV.4.m)
V1.12 adopted
on 01/27/2010 (new rule IV.2.u)
V1.11 adopted
on 08/13/2009 (new/changed rules IV.2.h, IV.4.b and IV.4.m)
V1.10 adopted
on 09/13/2007 (reflects transition from GPC to GWPG)
V1.04 adopted
on 10/20/2006
V1.03 adopted
on 08/04/2006
V1.02 adopted
on 04/27/2006
V1.01 updated
on 02/09/2006 to align wording with SPEC policy
V1.00 adopted on 01/25/2006 |
|