From: Dr. Eddie (eackad_at_gmail.com)
Date: Sun Nov 25 2012 - 20:11:47 CST
I think it is the gpu's. The cpu's are the same clock speed. The number of
cuda cores is triple that of the 580 class in the 600 series. So the
scaling seems to be almost linear with the number of cuda-cores.
Eddie
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Aron Broom <broomsday_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> there.
>
> ~Aron
>
>
> 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 memory
>>
>> 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 memory
>>
>> 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!
>> Eddie
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Aron Broom M.Sc
> PhD Student
> Department of Chemistry
> University of Waterloo
>
>
-- Eddie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Tue Dec 31 2013 - 23:22:47 CST