From: Aron Broom (broomsday_at_gmail.com)
Date: Sun Nov 25 2012 - 13:25:19 CST
neat, that seems like a fair speedup!
Do you think most of that is a result of the GPUs, or are there also big
differences in the CPUs? I know NAMD 2.9 gave some minor boosts to GPU
performance also, but certainly nothing on the order that you're seeing
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Dr. Eddie <eackad_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I you are interested I have some benchmarks of namd 2.9 on nvidia gtx
> 690's and 590's:
> The gtx 690's are two video cards per node (thus 4 gpu's per node) on a
> dual 16-core AMD processor board (thus 32 cores). for 19777 particles I get:
> Info: Benchmark time: 20 CPUs 0.00808809 s/step 0.0936121 days/ns 223.324
> MB memory
> 16 cpu's
> Info: Benchmark time: 16 CPUs 0.00663649 s/step 0.0768112 days/ns 206.988
> MB memory
> This compares with namd 2.8 on a dual 12-core system with a gtx 590:
> Info: Benchmark time: 12 CPUs 0.0314254 s/step 0.363719 days/ns 17.9045 MB
> This compares with namd 2.8 on a dual 12-core system with a gtx 590 and a
> gtx 580 (3 gpu's):
> Info: Benchmark time: 12 CPUs 0.0216837 s/step 0.250969 days/ns 17.9739 MB
> It seems after 3 gpu's, 4 cpu's per gpu seems to be optimum.
> I had tested namd 2.8 with other cpu numbers and 12 always was best. I
> don't know if it is something about exceeding the number of cores on a
> physical processor or something else.
> Hope this helps!
-- Aron Broom M.Sc PhD Student Department of Chemistry University of Waterloo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Mon Dec 31 2012 - 23:22:17 CST