From chemistry-request[ AT ]ccl.net Fri Jul 1 08:57:33 2005 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.197]) by server.ccl.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j61CvSOJ031523 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2005 08:57:29 -0400 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id q3so170416nzb for ; Fri, 01 Jul 2005 05:57:28 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=QlrJep+qQnsNyeZlsxjBHXzeVVZl+fqThymutvJRpqEY2NPR2d2GLT3Dmzn+pWuzHUnNQt5alFcg3NmafYxJ77wi9q+fKS4dZ8UnaxMpdN0LZIqLCiKdKx+Ge1IqCuHP4pd1p/4CjwqBlGv1BW30wpH5vNT6yfrbD+fyfQmG70g= Received: by 10.36.41.11 with SMTP id o11mr702596nzo; Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.113.2 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jul 2005 04:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 07:57:42 -0400 From: john furr Reply-To: john furr To: chemistry *o* ccl.net Subject: Re: CCL:dual-core Opteron 275 performance In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline References: <20050629012225.44422.qmail *o* web51802.mail.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET autolearn=no version=3.0.4 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on server.ccl.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by server.ccl.net id j61CvXOJ031539 Thanks for the review. While the results are very impressive I wonder what the results would have been if you compared 4 3.2 Xeon's against the two opterons. A quick look at pricewatch.com shows the Xeon 3.2 selling for USD $310 were as the opteron 275's are going for USD $1328. Also I would be interested to know if the Xeon processors had 1 or 2 M of cache. I have found this to make a difference on certain calculations. Anyhow thaks for posting the review. I am looking into building a new test system and I will certainly be looking into AMD processors. John Furr Dynamol Inc. On 7/1/05, S.I.Gorelsky wrote: > > To add to the discussion about the performance of new dual-core > processors for computational chemistry applications, > > the comparison of Intel and AMD dual-CPU based computers is shown at: > > http://www.sg-chem.net/cluster/ > > As can be seen from the graph, the Gaussian 03 execution speed (test job > 397) on dual-core dual-CPU Opteron 275 workstation is faster by a factor of 1.95 > as compared to the dual-CPU Xeon 3.2GHz 800MHz FSB machine. > > ----------------- > > I would like to thank Ed Gasiorowski (AMD) and Mike Fay (Colfax > International) for their support. > > Serge Gorelsky > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr S.I. Gorelsky, Department of Chemistry, Stanford University > Box 155, 333 Campus Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5080 USA > Phone: (650) 723-0041. Fax: (650) 723-0852. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > -= This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =- > To send e-mail to subscribers of CCL put the string CCL: on your Subject: line > and send your message to: CHEMISTRY *o* ccl.net > > Send your subscription/unsubscription requests to: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST *o* ccl.net > HOME Page: http://www.ccl.net | Jobs Page: http://www.ccl.net/jobs > > If your is mail bouncing from ccl.net domain due to spam filters, please > use the Web based form from CCL Home Page > -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > > > >