[Wien] performance problem using ifort + Goto's lib

[Peter Blaha]

P4 (3.2 GHz) is probably not enough to specify a system. Motherboard, memory,
and specific version of the processor (cache, hypertrading,...) may change
the performance by these 10-15 %.

The "228" seconds were reported by
Lutz Rauscher" <rauscher at qms.cache.waseda.ac.jp>
and confirmed by
Jose Mestnik Filho <jmestnik at baitaca.ipen.br>:
"The computers are pentium 4HT, 3.2 Gh, dual
channel memory, 1 Gb memory each, expandable until 4Gb. The test_case
matches exactly with the known benchmarks (226 s)."


> >P4, 3.2 GHz, dual channel mem.   258 sec    ifc7, mkl6
> >P4, 3.2 GHz, 400MHz dual ch.mem. 228 sec    ifort8.0, mkl6.1
> >
> >Not really a clean comparison (ifc vs ifort as well), but this gain of
> >30 s is less than the estimated gain of goto over mkl 6.0. If this
> >conclusion is true (do other users find the same?), then this explains
> >your above question.
> >
> I did the original benchmark on our workstation that yielded the 258 sec
> result.  This benchmark actually involved the ifc 7.1 compiler and the
> mkl 6.1 libraries.  I have since applied the latest update to the mkl
> libraries and recompiled with the ifort 8.0 compiler and I find no change
> in the benchmark time - with some optimization, I now get a benchmark
> time of 256 sec, and if you kill absolutely ever process, then you can
> trim it down to 254 sec.  Compiling with the Goto blas routines also
> didn't seem to make much of a difference (on the order of seconds).
> I think this result is consistent with benchmark time of 258 secs that
> was quoted earlier in this thread.

                                      P.Blaha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter BLAHA, Inst.f. Materials Chemistry, TU Vienna, A-1060 Vienna
Phone: +43-1-58801-15671             FAX: +43-1-58801-15698
Email: blaha at theochem.tuwien.ac.at    WWW: http://info.tuwien.ac.at/theochem/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------