Re: amber-developers: ifort v. 9

From: David A. Case <>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:08:12 -0700

On Mon, Aug 08, 2005, John Mongan wrote:

> Has anyone else tried the new version 9 intel compilers? In my fairly
> informal testing, sander compiled with ifort 9 seems to pass tests and
> appears to run 1-2% faster on my (somewhat aging) 2GHz Xeon.

Assuming that the comparison is to ifc 8.x, that would go along with our
experience: I haven't seen bugs in ifc9/icc9 that would affect sander or
but no great performance increase either.

> While on the topic of performance, I've been meaning to ask: has anyone
> compared performance between different MPI implementations on "commodity

> clusters" (that is, fast dual processor x86 machines with GigE
> interconnects)? Most people around here seem to use mpich, but I've been

> wondering if mpich2 or lam (or something else?) might be better.

lam has been more stable than mpich, so we tend to favor it, not seeing
performance difference. I would hope that people would try mpich2
(I've just played with it). It should certainly replace mpich itself, and
maybe we could standardize on this, perhaps(?) as a first step towards
starting to use MPI-2 functionality.

Received on Wed Apr 05 2006 - 23:49:53 PDT
Custom Search