Subject: Re: [Beowulf] CCL:Opteron or Nocona ? (fwd from m.somers :a: chem.leidenuniv.nl) (fwd from lindahl :a: pathscale.com)

From: Eugen Leitl <eugen :a: leitl.org>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:02:46 +0200

----- Forwarded message from Greg Lindahl <lindahl :a: pathscale.com> -----

From: Greg Lindahl <lindahl :a: pathscale.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 00:03:11 -0700
To: Beowulf :a: beowulf.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] CCL:Opteron or Nocona ? (fwd from
	m.somers :a: chem.leidenuniv.nl)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:05:28PM -0400, Mark Hahn wrote:

> I would very much like to see a good comparison of Intel compilers
> versus the alternatives.  I know good things about Pathscale, for instance,
> and gcc 4.0 and 4.1 seem pretty impressive.

In addition to the usual benchmarks like SPECfp and Polyhedron, there
is a computational chemistry comparison done by Daresbury Labs in the
UK.  Opteron+PathScale does quite well.

http://www.polyhedron.co.uk/compare/linux/f77bench_AMD.html
http://www.polyhedron.co.uk/compare/linux/f90bench_AMD.html

http://www.cse.clrc.ac.uk/disco/index.shtml, especially
http://www.cse.clrc.ac.uk/disco/Benchmarks/IntelProj.Serial.update1.pdf

We're looking forward to Daresbury testing with our newest compilers,
as we've made some substantial performance improvements since the
version they used (1.2).

-- greg

_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf :a: beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net