Papers › SCALE-Sim v3: A modular cycle-accurate systolic accelerator simulator for end-to-end...
SCALE-Sim v3: A modular cycle-accurate systolic accelerator simulator for end-to-end system analysis
Ritik Raj, Sarbartha Banerjee, Nikhil Chandra, Zishen Wan, Jianming Tong, Ananda Samajdar, Tushar Krishna
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
The rapid advancements in AI, scientific computing, and high-performance computing (HPC) have driven the need for versatile and efficient hardware accelerators. Existing tools like SCALE-Sim v2 provide valuable cycle-accurate simulations for systolic-array-based architectures but fall short in supporting key modern features such as sparsity, multi-core scalability, and comprehensive memory analysis. To address these limitations, we present SCALE-Sim v3, a modular, cycle-accurate simulator that extends the capabilities of its predecessor. SCALE-Sim v3 introduces five significant enhancements: multi-core simulation with spatio-temporal partitioning and hierarchical memory structures, support for sparse matrix multiplications (SpMM) with layer-wise and row-wise sparsity, integration with Ramulator for detailed DRAM analysis, precise data layout modeling to minimize memory stalls, and energy and power estimation via Accelergy. These improvements enable deeper end-to-end system analysis for modern AI accelerators, accommodating a wide variety of systems and workloads and providing detailed full-system insights into latency, bandwidth, and power efficiency. A 128x128 array is 6.53x faster than a 32x32 array for ViT-base, using only latency as a metric. However, SCALE-Sim v3 finds that 32x32 is 2.86x more energy-efficient due to better utilization and lower leakage energy. For EdP, 64x64 outperforms both 128x128 and 32x32 for ViT-base. SCALE-Sim v2 shows a 21% reduction in compute cycles for six ResNet18 layers using weight-stationary (WS) dataflow compared to output-stationary (OS). However, when factoring in DRAM stalls, OS dataflow exhibits 30.1% lower execution cycles compared to WS, highlighting the critical role of detailed DRAM analysis.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections