Comparisons between GPU implementations are usually asymmetric: one side is tuned by its author, the other is run as found. I report a programme that tuned both a novel SOM algorithm (SparseBin) and the baseline algorithm it was being compared to (cuSPARSE). The best-matching-unit search that dominates self-organizing map training was tuned through four levers - tile size, tile-membership clustering, neuron-axis chunking and vectorised loads - reaching 5.6-10.1x per epoch over the previously published configuration at map sizes from 32x32 to 512x512, and lifting the margin over the CUDA implementation behind our earlier MEDLINE atlases from ~80x to ~385x. cuSPARSE, the implementation SparseBin is compared against, received every lever with an analogue on its side, and became 2-3x faster in the process. The tuned kernel pressed the L2 bandwidth roof at 77% of peak with every other unit at 40-65%, bounding any further lever at ~1.3x - a terminal result rather than a waypoint, and every untested lever was either capped by that bound by construction or measured null.

翻译：暂无翻译