Re: Comparison of Mathematica on Various Computers
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg64413] Re: Comparison of Mathematica on Various Computers
- From: carlos at colorado.edu
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:05:21 -0500 (EST)
- References: <200602090745.CAA19418@smc.vnet.net> <200602100713.CAA15024@smc.vnet.net> <dsk8m8$i9l$1@smc.vnet.net> <dsmueo$da0$1@smc.vnet.net> <dspft3$cg1$1@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Why look at compilers and libraries? Note that the better performance of AMD chips is consistent across different OS (Window, Linux, Solaris). Pressumably different compilers and libraries are being used. We notice similar across the board superiority in testing a suite of applications to benchmark supercomputers, as noted in a previous post. IMO the main reason is hardware: a better memory controller integrated into the 64-bit chipset. Mathematica tends to be memory traffic intensive because of the list structures. Our tests on 128-CPU clusters were also memory traffic bound for a different reason: each processor talks to each other through a VM system.
- References:
- Comparison of Mathematica on Various Computers
- From: karl unterkofler <karl.unterkofler@fhv.at>
- Re: Comparison of Mathematica on Various Computers
- From: "fizzy" <fizzycist@knology.net>
- Comparison of Mathematica on Various Computers