Pathscale perhaps still have a pulse but it is a very weak one. I know no
machines that have pathscale compilers available and I can't see how they
can survive long term. If I recall right NVIDIA bought Pathscale, or a chunk
of them and it became the basis for their NVCC cuda compiler. Although I may
be confused on that so don't quote me.
Gfortran is closing the performance gap fast though and if you hook it with
MKL the difference for GB is minimal while PME stands around 10% or so last
time I checked. Thus the value add in the pathscale compilers is really
minimal considering the cost.
Just my 3c.
All the best
Ross
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amber-developers-bounces.ambermd.org [mailto:amber-developers-
> bounces.ambermd.org] On Behalf Of Robert Duke
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 10:55 AM
> To: AMBER Developers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [AMBER-Developers] PMEMD missing type?
>
> So, just out of curiosity, does anyone know what is happening with
> PathScale? I thought they had maybe died, but I can still find a
> webpage.
> Two or three years ago, they were pretty close on performance, with a
> significant difference (positive) in usability. I had always figured
> intel
> would have an edge because they make the chips and have pretty deep
> pockets,
> but their usability factor has been just awful for some time now. When
> I
> first advocated using them (I think it was at least partially my fault,
> though these days there are not a lot of other options anyway), things
> were
> not nearly this bad, except perhaps for Itanium...
> Best Regards - Bob
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ross Walker" <ross.rosswalker.co.uk>
> To: "'AMBER Developers Mailing List'" <amber-developers.ambermd.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:47 PM
> Subject: RE: [AMBER-Developers] PMEMD missing type?
>
>
> > 10.1.018 also works.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: amber-developers-bounces.ambermd.org [mailto:amber-developers-
> >> bounces.ambermd.org] On Behalf Of case
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 10:03 AM
> >> To: AMBER Developers Mailing List
> >> Subject: Re: [AMBER-Developers] PMEMD missing type?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010, case wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > cpp -traditional -P -DBINTRAJ -DDIRFRC_EFS -DDIRFRC_COMTRANS
> >> > > > -DDIRFRC_NOVEC -DFFTLOADBAL_2PROC -DPUBFFT pme_setup.fpp
> >> pme_setup.f90
> >> > > > ifort -fast -c pme_setup.f90
> >> > > > pme_setup.f90(417): error #6404: This name does not have a
> type,
> >> and
> >> > > > must
> >> > > > have an explicit type. [NATOM]
> >> > > > do n = 1, natom
> >> > > > ------------^
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >> > What Intel compiler are you using?
> >>
> >> One quick addtional point, then I have meetings all day:
> >>
> >> For me, it appears that ifort 10.1.025 works, but 11.1.069 fails.
> >>
> >> ...dac
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> AMBER-Developers mailing list
> >> AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> >> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AMBER-Developers mailing list
> > AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER-Developers mailing list
> AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Tue Mar 09 2010 - 11:30:04 PST
