Subject: Responses to "Gaussian on P6: Linux vs. NT?"

From: "George D. Parks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 09:38:48 -0500

Here is the summary of responses to my question regarding Gaussian under
Linux vs. Windows NT.  The only hard data, supplied by Bernd Wiedel,
suggests that Gaussian under Windows95 is 20%-50% slower than Linux.  I
suspect that Windows NT would be somewhat faster than Windows95, but still
slower than Linux.

George Parks
============================================================
Bernd Wiedel <[email-masked]>

I used nearly the same set of test jobs as Joe Durant's
G94 Benchmark-page (http://mephisto.ca.sandia.gov/benchmarks.html).
This is a subset of test-jobs provided with G94 by Gaussian,Inc.

Here are my results.

In both cases the computer is a DellDim XPS200n/64MB EIDE 3.2 GB RAM.

1)bench_a

System:  test001 test028 test094 test155  Total
------------------------------------------------
Linux	    5.2    14.5    53.9   287.1    360.7  (1.0)
Win95	   13.0    21.0    74.0   324.0    432.0  (1.2)

The other tests are some of our own larger benchmarks:
2)bench_b

System:	test1	 test2	 test3	  Total
-------------------------------------
Linux	  347   2478	 2319    5144   (1.0)
Win95	  422   3631   3623    7676   (1.5)

test1	HF/6-31G* FOPT cyclohexane	
test2	HF/6-31G* FREQ	  "
test3  MP2/6-31G* FOPT    "

Linux:
Suse 2.0, G94 RevD5., f2c, makefile small -opt- changes to 
makefile of Gaussian, Inc.
 
 Win95:
 G94 V4. RevD5 32Bit Version
 both have same memory defaults
=======================================================
"Michael D. Bartberger" <[email-masked]>

I'm afraid I don't have any numbers for you, but your post is something
that I've been thinking about a bit lately.  I use G94 on a couple of
workstations and compute servers (not Linux boxes) and have used G92W and
G94W under Win3.1 and 95 for a couple of years.

Win3.1 / 95 performance is unfortunately not all that great compared to
the Unix boxes.   I'm thinking about buying a P6/200 so I'd really be
interested in any information you collect... especially in that they've
finally (supposedly) introduced formchk and unfchk to the Windows version-
now there ought to be total compatibility between Win and unix platforms.
If NT performance is close to Linux I'd not bother installing Linux (and
not have to get source code.)

My feeling is that NT will still suffer a performance hit.... but please
post a summary of what you find out.....
=======================================================
Jussi Eloranta <[email-masked]>

If you run the 16 bit version on NT then it is very much slower than the
Linux version. We have not tested the 32 bit NT version.
========================================================
Craig Burkhart <[email-masked]>

Although I do not have direct Gaussian benchmarks comparing a Pentium
Pro (200 MHz), I have seen results which put Linux about a factor of 2
faster than NT for the same program and the same testbed. Your mileage
may vary...

***********************************************************
*  George D. Parks                 (918) 661-7780 (work)  *
*  356 PL PRC                      (918) 662-1097  (FAX)  *
*  Phillips Petroleum              (918) 336-3041 (home)  *
*  Bartlesville, OK  74004           [email-masked] (work)  *
*                             [email-masked] (home)  *
***********************************************************