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

[Huiqun Zhou]

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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mgal2o4-cf.scf.in
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1571 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.quantum-espresso.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20060803/36b160cd/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: test.sh
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 183 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.quantum-espresso.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20060803/36b160cd/attachment-0001.obj>