Difference between revisions of "NAMD Benchmark"

From In The Wings
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 8: Line 8:
 
!Processor Type!!Freq!!Cores!!Sockets!!Tot Cores!!Days/ns!!Memory Used!!NAMD Version
 
!Processor Type!!Freq!!Cores!!Sockets!!Tot Cores!!Days/ns!!Memory Used!!NAMD Version
 
|-
 
|-
|colspan=9 |'''Xeon Phi'''
+
|colspan=9 style="text-align:center;"|'''Xeon Phi'''
 
|-
 
|-
 
|Intel Xeon Phi 7210 || 1.3G||256||1||256||4.39648||17654.7MB||2.13
 
|Intel Xeon Phi 7210 || 1.3G||256||1||256||4.39648||17654.7MB||2.13
 
|-
 
|-
|colspan=9 || '''Xeon'''
+
|colspan=9 style="text-align:center;"| '''Xeon'''
 
|-
 
|-
 
|Intel Xeon Gold 6142||2.60G||16||2||32||  2.92143 ||4977.29MB||2.13
 
|Intel Xeon Gold 6142||2.60G||16||2||32||  2.92143 ||4977.29MB||2.13

Revision as of 13:59, 8 August 2019

NAMD Benchmarks

Another aspect of benchmarking is to utilize actual scientific software. In this case I am using NAMD, a molecular dynamics package that can really stress processors.

Benchmark Results

CUDA Client
Processor Type Freq Cores Sockets Tot Cores Days/ns Memory Used NAMD Version
Xeon Phi
Intel Xeon Phi 7210 1.3G 256 1 256 4.39648 17654.7MB 2.13
Xeon
Intel Xeon Gold 6142 2.60G 16 2 32 2.92143 4977.29MB 2.13