From chemistry-request@server.ccl.net Thu Aug 12 05:23:05 1999 Received: from iris.inc.bme.hu (iris.inc.bme.hu [152.66.63.5]) by server.ccl.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA23289 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 05:23:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (dino@localhost) by iris.inc.bme.hu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09734; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:19:08 +0100 (BUD) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:19:08 +0100 From: Szieberth Denes To: Gary Kedziora cc: chemistry@ccl.net Subject: Re: CCL:Xeon processors In-Reply-To: <199908111419.JAA27164@mercury.chem.nwu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Has anyone seen a comparison of the performance of a Xeon processor > with a straight Pentium II or III at the same (or nearly the same) > clock speed? I'm interested in performance comparisons using > the usual chemistry applications, good cache-optimized code-- > not implying there is no good cache-optimized chemistry code--or > any other benchmark. > Hi, I was testing a normal pII450 against a pII450 xeon with 1024 kb cache. The application was Gaussian94 compiled with the f2c-gcc combination, the tests jobs were geom. optimizations and freq. calculations on 10-atom molecules with 70-250 basis functions and the results were disappointing: the xeon was only about 5 % faster, despite the bigger and faster cache. dino dino@iris.inc.bme.hu