On Thu, Mar 10, 2016, Gerald Monard wrote:
>
> I've been there already, but there are so many different flavors:
> - clang 3.5.1 + gcc 4.8.5, Gentoo Linux
> - gcc 4.4.5, linux rhel 5.11
> - GCC 4.8.5, CUDA 7.5, No MKL, MPICH 3.1.4, RHEL 7
> - gcc 4.8.5 with MKL, linux
> - gcc 5.2.0, linux rhel 6.7
> - gcc 5.3, mac OSX
> - intel 10.0.023, linux
> - intel 11.1.056, linux rhel 5.11
> - Intel 13.0.1 with MKL, linux
> - intel 15.0.3, linux rhel 6.7
> - intel 16.0.0, linux rhel 6.7
> - intel 16.0.1 with MKL, linux
> - pgi 15.4.0, linux rhel 6.7
Mostly, the OS should not matter. I hope that any gnu compiler after 4.4
should be fine...we'll know more soon. My experience with Intel compilers
is that they have been much more variable (and buggy) from version to version.
It would be of interest to hear (from Dan, others?) about what version of
compilers are available at national sites.
I would not worry obout cygwin or dragonegg. What works for those works,
and some kind soul might want to try to squash bugs, but that's not required.
(There *is* a virtue in trying lots of compilers, since it can expose code
bugs that are somehow hidden otherwise.)
>
> I don't have experience with gcc5, but on my linux cluster, Intel
> compiler gives faster results for MD, especially when the MKL is used.
> I'm talking here of course about things that are not cuda-enabled (QM
> and QM/MM for example).
Could you say how much faster (for some example)? (Aside: you can use MKL
+ gnu compilers, if that makes any difference).
...thx...dac
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Thu Mar 10 2016 - 09:30:03 PST
