Re: [AMBER] Implicit solvent simulation with Andersen thermostat

From: Jason Swails <>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:43:16 -0400

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Glenn Carrington [bs10g3c] <> wrote:

> Hi,
> Thanks very much for the feedback and to Jason for the input files. Some
> useful pointers there.
> I think there has been a misuderstanding though, in that the x2 speedup on
> the GPU is Berendsen versus Langeivein.

‚ÄčNo misunderstanding. I'm very surprised that Langevin causes a 2x
slowdown compared to NVE, let alone Berendsen (which should be basically
the same cost as NVE, but a tiny bit cheaper).

What Langevin does is generate 3N normally distributed random numbers each
step. Contrast that to the nonbonded interactions, of which there are N^2
of them. Langevin should definitely be more expensive than Berendsen or
Andersen or NVE. But for a system of 47K atoms, the nonbonded term should
be *so* much more expensive than the integration step (regardless of the
integrator you use) that you should barely notice the difference.

All the best,

Jason M. Swails
Rutgers University
Postdoctoral Researcher
AMBER mailing list
Received on Fri Mar 27 2015 - 05:00:05 PDT
Custom Search