[Pw_forum] Re: Woodcrest vs Opteron performance in pwscf calc.

[Alexander Shaposhnikov]

Hi,
my numbers for Opteron with intel ifort 9.0 and ACML
are close to those you have obtained. 

Best Regards,
A. Shaposhnikov




On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 16:41 +0800, Huiqun Zhou wrote:
> Here they are. Looking forward to hearing your story.
> 
> Huiqun Zhou
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Alexander Shaposhnikov" <shaposh at isp.nsc.ru>
> To: <pw_forum at pwscf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 6:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] Re: Woodcrest vs Opteron performance in pwscf calc.
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the answer.
> > I don't think this topic is relevant to the PW_forum goals.
> >
> > Could you send me the job's input file ? I'd like to test this and
> > compare with my own Opteron system. We have several Opteron machines,
> > and if the performance difference is really that big, probably its the
> > time to move on to the new platform. But my experience with the prev.
> > generation of Intel processors showed, that Opteron is faster is most
> > cases, especially then it comes to multi-threaded calculations.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > A. Shaposhnikov
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 18:09 +0800, Huiqun Zhou wrote:
> >> Hi, Alexander,
> >>
> >> A short answer is: Woodcrest (2.66 GHz) > Dempsey (3.2 GHz) > Opteron 280
> >> (2.6 GHz).
> >>
> >> The compute nodes with woodcrest and dempsey in my cluster have 4GB 
> >> memory,
> >> one SATA
> >> disk. The nodes with opteron 280 are SUN Fire x4100, each has 8GB memory 
> >> and
> >> two SAS
> >> disks.
> >>
> >> The test case is total energy calculation of MgAl2O4 (calcium ferrite
> >> structure). The system has
> >> 28 atoms (orthohombic system, Z=4). It took the same number of iterations 
> >> to
> >> reach SCF
> >> convergency on the 3 different machines and got physically same results. 
> >> The
> >> number in
> >> parantheses is the elapsed time given by PWscf.
> >>
> >> Here are numbers
> >> (1) woodcrest (2.66 GHz):
> >> 1 core : 3m57s (3m55.86s)
> >> 2 cores: 2m11s (2m10.44s)
> >> 4 cores: 1m23s (1m17.73s)
> >>
> >> (2) dempsey (3.2 GHz)
> >> 1 core : (6m26.90s)
> >> 2 cores: (3m16.47s)
> >> 4 cores: (1m39.74s)
> >>
> >> (3) opteron 280 (2.6 GHz)
> >> 1 core : 7m13s (7m09.71s)
> >> 2 cores: 3m56s (3m52.70s)
> >> 4 cores: 2m26s (2m16.72s)
> >>
> >> It seems that woodcrest and dempsey are much faster than opteron. The
> >> scalability of
> >> dempsey is the best, woodcrest is the worst. Despite of the amazing
> >> performance per
> >> core of woodcrest, it drops to the same level of its predecessor, 
> >> dempsey,
> >> when taking
> >> the machine as a unit to evaluate its performance.
> >>
> >> But remember one thing: the number for opteron may not be fair. I 
> >> compiled
> >> the program
> >> using Intel fortran, Intel MPI 2.0. However, I ever used both Intel and
> >> PathScale to
> >> compile FFTW and its test cases on opteron machine, I didn't find any
> >> impressive
> >> differences.
> >>
> >> Hope it help you.
> >>
> >>
> >> Huiqun Zhou
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- 
> >> From: "Alexander Shaposhnikov" <shaposh at isp.nsc.ru>
> >> To: "Huiqun Zhou" <hqzhou at nju.edu.cn>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:57 PM
> >> Subject: Woodcrest vs Opteron performance in pwscf calc.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Hello dear sir,
> >> >
> >> > i have noticed from your posts to PW_forum that you
> >> > have access to both newest Intel Woodcrest platform and
> >> > AMD Opteron. Could you compare the performance of these two
> >> > platforms, for single-threaded, and parallel 4-core pwscf calculations?
> >> >
> >> > Thank you in advance,
> >> > Best Regards,
> >> > A. Shaposhnikov
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Pw_forum mailing list
> >> Pw_forum at pwscf.org
> >> http://www.democritos.it/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pw_forum mailing list
> > Pw_forum at pwscf.org
> > http://www.democritos.it/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
> >