-Since the proposed algorithm is not an exact method and do not test all the possible solutions (vectors of scaling factors)
-in the search space and to prove its efficiency, it was compared on small instances to a brute force search algorithm
-that tests all the possible solutions. The brute force algorithm was applied to different NAS benchmarks classes with
-different number of nodes. The solutions returned by the brute force algorithm and the proposed algorithm were identical
-and the proposed algorithm was on average 10 times faster than the brute force algorithm. It has a small execution time:
-for a heterogeneous cluster composed of four different types of nodes having the characteristics presented in
-table~(\ref{table:platform}), it takes on average \np[ms]{0.04} for 4 nodes and \np[ms]{0.15} on average for 144 nodes
-to compute the best scaling factors vector. The algorithm complexity is $O(F\cdot (N \cdot4) )$, where $F$ is the number
-of iterations and $N$ is the number of computing nodes. The algorithm needs from 12 to 20 iterations to select the best
-vector of frequency scaling factors that gives the results of the sections (\ref{sec.res}) and (\ref{sec.compare}) .
+\subsection{The comparison of the proposed scaling algorithm }
+\label{sec.compare_EDP}
+In this section, the scaling factors selection algorithm, called MaxDist,
+is compared to Spiliopoulos et al. algorithm \cite{Spiliopoulos_Green.governors.Adaptive.DVFS}, called EDP.
+They developed a green governor that regularly applies an online frequency selecting algorithm to reduce the energy consumed by a multicore architecture without degrading much its performance. The algorithm selects the frequencies that minimize the energy and delay products, $EDP=Enegry*Delay$ using the predicted overall energy consumption and execution time delay for each frequency.
+To fairly compare both algorithms, the same energy and execution time models, equations (\ref{eq:energy}) and (\ref{eq:fnew}), were used for both algorithms to predict the energy consumption and the execution times. Also Spiliopoulos et al. algorithm was adapted to start the search from the
+initial frequencies computed using the equation (\ref{eq:Fint}). The resulting algorithm is an exhaustive search algorithm that minimizes the EDP and has the initial frequencies values as an upper bound.
+
+Both algorithms were applied to the parallel NAS benchmarks to compare their efficiency. Table \ref{table:compare_EDP} presents the results of comparing the execution times and the energy consumptions for both versions of the NAS benchmarks while running the class C of each benchmark over 8 or 9 heterogeneous nodes. The results show that our algorithm gives better energy savings than Spiliopoulos et al. algorithm,
+on average it results in 29.76\% energy saving while their algorithm returns just 25.75\%. The average of performance degradation percentage is approximately the same for both algorithms, about 4\%.
+
+
+For all benchmarks, our algorithm outperforms
+Spiliopoulos et al. algorithm in term of energy and performance tradeoff, see figure (\ref{fig:compare_EDP}), because it maximizes the distance between the energy saving and the performance degradation values while giving the same weight for both metrics.
+
+
+
+
+\begin{table}[h]
+ \caption{Comparing the proposed algorithm}
+ \centering
+\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
+\hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Program \\ name\end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{Energy saving \%} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{Perf. degradation \%} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{Distance} \\ \cline{3-8}
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{} & EDP & MaxDist & EDP & MaxDist & EDP & MaxDist \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{CG} & 27.58 & 31.25 & 5.82 & 7.12 & 21.76 & 24.13 \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{MG} & 29.49 & 33.78 & 3.74 & 6.41 & 25.75 & 27.37 \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{LU} & 19.55 & 28.33 & 0.0 & 0.01 & 19.55 & 28.22 \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{EP} & 28.40 & 27.04 & 4.29 & 0.49 & 24.11 & 26.55 \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{BT} & 27.68 & 32.32 & 6.45 & 7.87 & 21.23 & 24.43 \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{SP} & 20.52 & 24.73 & 5.21 & 2.78 & 15.31 & 21.95 \\ \hline
+\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{FT} & 27.03 & 31.02 & 2.75 & 2.54 & 24.28 & 28.48 \\ \hline
+
+\end{tabular}
+\label{table:compare_EDP}
+\end{table}
+
+
+
+
+
+\begin{figure}[t]
+ \centering
+ \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig/compare_EDP.pdf}
+ \caption{Tradeoff comparison for NAS benchmarks class C}
+ \label{fig:compare_EDP}
+\end{figure}
+
