Index: doc/theses/colby_parsons_MMAth/text/actors.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/theses/colby_parsons_MMAth/text/actors.tex	(revision b3ac8ce3e2fba572875b248cfe3a9b08504e75fd)
+++ doc/theses/colby_parsons_MMAth/text/actors.tex	(revision 5d8cc96c9ca7b1789c3a22aa9a49314abf853723)
@@ -1365,4 +1365,17 @@
 \end{figure}
 
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\subfloat[AMD \CFA Matrix Benchmark]{
+		\resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{\input{figures/nasusCFAMatrix.pgf}}
+		\label{f:cfaMatrixAMD}
+	}
+	\subfloat[Intel \CFA Matrix Benchmark]{
+		\resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{\input{figures/pykeCFAMatrix.pgf}}
+		\label{f:cfaMatrixIntel}
+	}
+	\caption{The matrix benchmark comparing \CFA stealing heuristics (lower is better).}
+\end{figure}
+
 Figures~\ref{f:cfaRepeatAMD} and~\ref{f:cfaRepeatIntel} show the effects of the stealing heuristics for the repeat benchmark.
 This benchmark is a pathological case for work stealing actor systems, as the majority of work is being performed by the single actor conducting the scatter/gather.
@@ -1389,17 +1402,4 @@
 Hence, it is difficult to attribute the AMD gain to the aggressive work stealing in CAF.
 
-\begin{figure}
-	\centering
-	\subfloat[AMD \CFA Matrix Benchmark]{
-		\resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{\input{figures/nasusCFAMatrix.pgf}}
-		\label{f:cfaMatrixAMD}
-	}
-	\subfloat[Intel \CFA Matrix Benchmark]{
-		\resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{\input{figures/pykeCFAMatrix.pgf}}
-		\label{f:cfaMatrixIntel}
-	}
-	\caption{The matrix benchmark comparing \CFA stealing heuristics (lower is better).}
-\end{figure}
-
 % Local Variables: %
 % tab-width: 4 %