need to do Coursework

This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to [email protected].

Faculty of Engineering, Environment and Computing

M09CDE Computer Architectures and Principles Assignment Brief 2018/19

Module Title: Computer Architectures and Principles

Individual Cohort (January) Module Code M09CDE

Coursework Title

Resit Coursework

Hand out date: 21/01/2019

Lecturer Dr Dianabasi Nkantah

Due date: 6pm 29th April 2019

Estimated Time (hrs): 30 hours Word Limit*: 3500

Coursework type: Assignment % of Module Mark

50%

Submission arrangement online via CUMoodle: Submission link on CUMoodle File types and method of recording: ‘.pdf’, ‘.docx’, ‘.doc’ Mark and Feedback date: 13th Mar 2019 Mark and Feedback method: Feedback file on CUMoodle

Module Learning Outcomes Assessed:

2. Evaluate alternative systems software and machine performance features in order to select appropriate tools and deploy suitable hardware elements for a given set of technical and operational requirements.

3. Discuss the benefits of a range of system architectures and communications infrastructure elements for a range of applications and user requirements bearing in mind the competing constraints of performance, cost, security and usability.

4. Identify the merits of a range of specialised architectures in providing performance and other critical requirements for particular application areas or environments, measuring their effectiveness in achieving these goals.

Task and Mark distribution: SECTION A

You are required to choose two currently used microprocessors (from two different manufacturers). Processor manufacturers include Intel, AMD, ARM, Motorola, Fujitsu, VIA Technologies, etc. Each of the two processors chosen should be suitable for use in a different class of computers (e.g. PCs/Laptops, Servers, and embedded systems) from the second processor. Conduct research with the aim of analysing, as well as comparing and contrasting the design of these processors. A report of this analysis and comparison/contrast, with recommendations, should be compiled and submitted. You are expected to conduct research external to lectures (e.g. finding evidence to support your claims from manufacturer websites, journal/conference articles, etc.). Research should focus on performance, cost and energy consumption of these microprocessors. Aspects of design to consider should include, but not limited to, instruction set architecture, internal structure, interconnection architecture, cache organisation, error correction, memory management and parallel processing. Your report should also provide an indication of the current trend in processor design.

This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to [email protected].

An instruction set should be chosen from those used for any of the two microprocessors. An assembly language based on the chosen instruction set should be used in implementing an algorithm (you should agree on the algorithm to implement with the module leader). The algorithm should include a loop, a branch instruction, a subroutine call and some arithmetic/logic operations.

SECTION B Parallel computing can be provided by multicore (chip multiprocessor) or multiprocessor systems. With the latter, the multiple processors can be in distinct machines and operate either as one distributed system - symmetric multiprocessor (SMP), using a shared main memory, or non-shared memory systems where the workload of multiple processes/tasks is distributed around a cluster of machines, but the tasks themselves are distinct. Machines can also operate using a shared memory but with a cache-coherent Non-Uniform Memory Access (CC-NUMA) approach. Conduct research on SMP, Cluster and CC-NUMA systems. As part of this work, distinguish between thread and process level distribution. Provide examples of applications for which these systems would be best suited. Examples of commercial systems that adopt these approaches should be included in the report. Details of the architecture and organisation of these systems and their design issues should also be included in the report. Your report should be suitable for use as a detailed information document to provide an awareness of the differences among the approaches, and the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Assignment Deliverables

 A report should be submitted online (via CUMoodle). The report should include:

o Section A (not more than 2000 word) [40 marks]

o Section B (not more than 1500 words) [30 marks]

o An assembly language code for the implementation of an algorithm [20 marks]

 Report Presentation will be assessed [10 marks]

Notes: 1. You are expected to use the CUHarvard referencing format. For support and advice on how this

students can contact Centre for Academic Writing (CAW).

2. Please notify your registry course support team and module leader for disability support.

This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to [email protected].

3. Any student requiring an extension or deferral should follow the university process as outlined

here.

4. The University cannot take responsibility for any coursework lost or corrupted on disks, laptops

or personal computer. Students should therefore regularly back-up any work and are advised to

save it on the University system.

5. If there are technical or performance issues that prevent students submitting coursework

through the online coursework submission system on the day of a coursework deadline, an

appropriate extension to the coursework submission deadline will be agreed. This extension

will normally be 24 hours or the next working day if the deadline falls on a Friday or over the

weekend period. This will be communicated via email and as a CUMoodle announcement.

6. Assignments that are more than 10% over the word limit will result in a deduction of 10% of

the mark i.e. a mark of 60% will lead to a reduction of 6% to 54%. The word limit includes

quotations, but excludes the bibliography, reference list and tables.

Mark allocation guidelines to students

0-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ 80+

Work mainly incomplete and /or weaknesses in most areas

Most elements completed; weaknesses outweigh strengths

Most elements are strong, minor weaknesses

Strengths in all elements

Most work exceeds the standard expected

All work substantially exceeds the standard expected

This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to [email protected].

Marking Rubric

GRADE

Microprocessors Parallel Computing Algorithm Implementation Presentation

First

≥70

Presentation of data on different microprocessors.

Excellent in-depth analysis and comparison.

Appropriate conclusions drawn from analysis.

Use of the microprocessor in a commercial computer system has been explored.

Recommendations made towards the achievement of better processor design/performance, with reference to recent trends in computer architecture.

Use of journal/conference articles in research.

Well referenced report, with in-text citations.

Excellent in-depth analysis.

Appropriate conclusions drawn from analysis.

Recommendations made regarding which architecture works best for a given task

Use of journal/conference articles in research.

Well referenced report, with in-text citations. Well written comparison, easy to read.

Differences between parallelisation methods shown in chart form, or some other well laid out fashion.

Conclusions drawn after comparisons

Complete implementation of chosen algorithm.

Well written code; clear and concise.

Non-basic features of instruction set used.

Excellent presentation with cover page, table of

content, and page numbers.

Tables and figures are properly labelled.

Upper Second

60-69

Presentation of data on different microprocessors.

Very good analysis and comparison.

Appropriate conclusions drawn from analysis.

Use of the microprocessor in a commercial computer system has been explored.

Recommendations made towards the achievement of better processor design/performance, with reference to recent trends in computer architecture.

Well referenced report, with in-text citations.

Very good analysis.

Appropriate conclusions drawn from analysis.

Recommendations made regarding which architecture works best for a given task.

Well referenced report, with in-text citations. Well written comparison, easy to read.

Differences between parallelisation methods shown in chart form, or some other well laid out fashion.

Complete implementation of chosen algorithm.

Well written code; clear and concise.

Very good presentation with cover page, table of

content, and page numbers.

Tables and figures may not be properly labelled.

Lower Second

50-59

Presentation of data on different microprocessors.

Good analysis and comparison.

Conclusions drawn from analysis. Evidence of referencing.

Good analysis.

Conclusions drawn from analysis. Comparisons hard to follow. Evidence of referencing.

Complete implementation of chosen algorithm.

Code would work but is not easy to follow.

Good presentation with only one of the following

missing: cover page, table of content, and

page numbers. Tables and figures may not be properly labelled.

This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to [email protected].

Third

40-49

Presentation of data on different microprocessors.

Limited analysis and comparison.

Limited analysis. Limited comparison

Incomplete implementation of chosen algorithm

Fairly good presentation with some of the

following missing: cover page, table of content,

and page numbers. Tables and figures may not be properly labelled.

Fail

<40

Very little or no evidence of research work.

Very little or no evidence of research work.

No attempt to analyse the different architectures

No attempt to implement an algorithm

No attempt made at a decent presentation.

Late submission

0 0 0 0

Marks Awarded

This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to [email protected].