Yes. And potentially yes, but I'll believe that when I see it.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Fenley, Andrew <afenley.ucsd.edu> wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Curiously, is the hopeful 85-95% performance of a GTX 580 for pmemd SPDP?
> And if so, and assuming the GTX 680s don't have similar "breaking" issues
> when running in parallel, is there any expectation that the pci-express 3.0
> architecture and cuda 4.x would result in two GTX 680s out performing two
> GTX 580s (or rather two M2090s) when running parallel?
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew
>
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Scott Le Grand wrote:
>
> The upshot is that I expect it to only deliver 85-90% of a GTX 580. And
> that's partially because there's no increase in memory bandwidth and mostly
> because of the regression in double-precision performance. And that's a
> shame because single-precision *screams* on this chip.
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Scott Le Grand <varelse2005.gmail.com
> <mailto:varelse2005.gmail.com>>wrote:
>
> I am very optimistic about GTC680 performance...
>
> That said, anyone who hacks the configure script to make the current code
> run will be severely (an unnecessarily) disappointed. Every AMBER kernel
> has been meticulously shoehorned into GTX2xx and GTX5xx GPUs. GTX680 is a
> radical redesign of Fermi (please don't listen to the dunderheads on review
> sites blathering about matters that's beyond them about such things,
> seriously). That radical redesign has created a much more efficient GPU
> (I'm expecting the perf/watt on AMBER to hit transwarp as opposed to merely
> warp drive in the near future) but it's been at the expense of 33% higher
> operational latency.
>
> 33% higher operational latency is fine - except that the shared memory on
> GTX680 is exactly the same as GTX580 and that's leading to a ~30%
> performance deficit if one just runs the existing code. However, there are
> 2x as many machine registers on GTX680 than on GTX580. Or TLDR: I need to
> rewrite every single kernel for GTX680 from the ground-up to hit attainable
> performance.
>
> So give me a few weeks, mmkay?
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Ross Walker <ross.rosswalker.co.uk
> <mailto:ross.rosswalker.co.uk>>wrote:
>
> Hi Filip,
>
> Hi all,
> I was wondering
> what we can expect from GTX680 and in general from the new Kepler line.
> I know
> that GTX680 is very limited DP, but should be good in SP mode. Would we
> expect
> some speed boost compared to GTX580 and also will it work along Amber
> 11/12?
>
> Amber 11 will NOT support the GTX680 cards (unless you hack the configure
> script to compile it in what is effectively an emulation mode). It will be
> too much work to make patch against that. AMBER 12 will support them but it
> is going to take around 6 weeks to 2 months to get the optimization done
> and a patch released so it won't support the cards at release but it will
> as soon as we have the patch ready. I can't really give you any performance
> expectations right now, only got my first prototype board yesterday. ;-)
>
> Right now if you compile AMBER 12 with PTX support so that it will at
> least run on the GTX680 the performance sucks. It is about 70% of a GTX580.
> NVIDIA changed the hardware too much (massively increasing the threads but
> also the thread latency) so it will need some work to optimize it which is
> why I have chosen not to support the cards in AMBER 12 until we have that
> optimization done. Once it is done I expect considerable improvement over
> GTX580 speeds but can't give you anything concrete right now.
>
> P.S. Indeed most
> of us will probably wait for GK110, but CUDA capability of GTX680 is
> very limited now.
>
> This is probably a good idea, at least you should wait until we have had
> a chance to get our hands dirty with the GK104 chip. So I'd urge you to
> wait at least until we have the patch ready for AMBER 12.
>
> All the best
> Ross
>
> /\
> \/
> |\oss Walker
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> | Assistant Research Professor |
> | San Diego Supercomputer Center |
> | Adjunct Assistant Professor |
> | Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry |
> | University of California San Diego |
> | NVIDIA Fellow |
> | http://www.rosswalker.co.uk | http://www.wmd-lab.org/ |
> | Tel: +1 858 822 0854 | EMail:- ross.rosswalker.co.uk<mailto:
> ross.rosswalker.co.uk> |
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Note: Electronic Mail is not secure, has no guarantee of delivery, may
> not be read every day, and should not be used for urgent or sensitive
> issues.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org<mailto:AMBER.ambermd.org>
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org<mailto:AMBER.ambermd.org>
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Thu Mar 29 2012 - 09:00:03 PDT
