New Gromacs core for Mac

Discussion in 'Distributed Computing' started by bousozoku, Nov 1, 2003.

  1. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #1
    There is a new folding@home Gromacs core that will be generally available next week.

    It is enhanced for all machines and I'm sure you'll be impressed with the results, especially on G3s. Currently, it's only taking 37 percent of the time to process a work unit on my dual G4/800. 83 minutes per percent became 33. :)

    Anyway, you can download it, earlier than would happen automatically, by removing FahCore_78.exe from the usual directory.
     
  2. Vlade macrumors 6502a

    Vlade

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Location:
    Meadville, PA
    #2
    Thats AWESOME, this should REALLY boost our team when everyone gets the new core. I'm going to upgrade right now, it seams like you just quit folding, delete the FAH_CORE78, and start up again.

    EDIT : It has more than doubled my speed!!!
     
  3. chibianh macrumors 6502a

    chibianh

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Location:
    Colorado
    #3
    so what would happen if you don't delete the 78 core now? Would it still download the new one next week?
     
  4. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
  5. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #5
    Yes, if not when you get a new unit, but most likely next week.

    This has improved my production by a lot.

    Anyone with a mac, get this, it kicks.
     
  6. Vlade macrumors 6502a

    Vlade

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Location:
    Meadville, PA
    #6
    I think this could easily add 4000+ points per day to our team, What do you guys think?
     
  7. bousozoku thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #7
    There is G5 compatibility, as well as much improved performance for G4s and G3s.
     
  8. csubear macrumors 6502a

    csubear

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    #8
    I didn't know they used gromacs for your guys folding software. I am more familar with the app from molecular dynamics(MD) . We use gromacs for MD simulations at where I work(all mac by the way). What is this new update you guys are talking about. I know that there is a mac beta that we are using, and that these is a new beta tuned for the G5. Maybe this update you guys are talking about is based of the beta? Could you guys explain this folding program?
     
  9. stoid macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #9
    I have the 65 core, will it upgrade my core to 78??
     
  10. Vlade macrumors 6502a

    Vlade

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Location:
    Meadville, PA
    #10
    Yes and No. There are 2 types of units, Tinker and Gromacs. The 65 core is for tinkers (what your using now), when you finish the work unit your on, you will most likely get a new Gromacs core (78). You have no choice but to finish your tinker unit, and your next unit should be about 3-4 times as fast if its gromacs.
     
  11. bousozoku thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #11
    Stanford University has a distributed application which attempts to simulate protein folding. They have been working with Gromacs for nearly two years and have been using it to speed the simulations. I doubt that they've used the beta of which you speak, but of course, it's possible. It's more likely given the timeframe that they've simply taken the new wrapper code which utilises Gromacs and re-compiled the whole thing with gcc 3.3 for G5 compatibility.
     
  12. csubear macrumors 6502a

    csubear

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    #12
    you are are most likly right about the beta . I am sure that they have just recomplied it with gcc 3.3 . It is a shame though. We are using the gromacs 3.1.5 beta for a while now and it is very nice. All the inner loops are compiled with altivec code, and that makes gromacs scream on our G4's. I relly want to see what it will do with a G5.
     
  13. Powerbook G5 macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #13
    I deleted 65 but instead of getting 78, it just re-downloaded 65 again.
     
  14. bousozoku thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #14
    Yes, of course. Tinker work units use FahCore_65.exe, not FahCore_78.exe, which is reserved for Gromacs work units.

    When you receive your next Gromacs work unit, it will most likely download a new version of FahCore_78.exe for your folding pleasure.
     
  15. Tiauguinho macrumors 6502a

    Tiauguinho

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #15
    Ill test this new Protein on my Dual G5 and will make a report of the performance of the beast compared to my Dual G4 1GHz.
     
  16. nw_mike macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Location:
    Northwest, USA
    #16
    So should G5's use Gromacs now?

    According to discussions over at http://forum.folding-community.org/ They recommended not using Gromacs/(Altivec) enhanced core. So can we now?

    Also, what determines what cores get downloaded? Right now my G5 is running 2 x FahCore_65.exe?

    TIA

    G5
     
  17. mc68k macrumors 68000

    mc68k

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    #17
    Re: So should G5's use Gromacs now?

    a protein is downloaded that best matches your processor type and speed.

    according to the protein that is chosen, you get a certain core.

    TINKER = core65
    GROMACS = core78
     
  18. bousozoku thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #18
    Re: So should G5's use Gromacs now?

    It wasn't a recommendation on the G5, it was an impossibility to complete a Gromacs work unit using a G5. Now, it's possible.
     
  19. nw_mike macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Location:
    Northwest, USA
    #19
    Thanks to bousozoku & mc68k (NM)

    Thanks to bousozoku & mc68k
     
  20. bousozoku thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #20
    Now that I've completed 3 Gromacs WUs with the new core being at least partially responsible for quick turnaround, they've given me Tinker WUs all round.

    Is this a Wintel conspiracy? :D
     
  21. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #21
    Indeed it is!

    Why did I also get a Tinker unit?

    And WHY IS IS PROCESSING SO SLLLOOOWWW..

    I aprox 80% slower then normal!

    :eek:
     
  22. Powerbook G5 macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #22
    I always get stuck with the tinker WUs, it's really annoying. It just sucks that Folding is sooooo slow on Macs, I wish they had a better client for OS X.
     
  23. bousozoku thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #23
    Well, the Tinker core could have been written better, but it's mostly because the G3 and G4 stink at floating point numbers, that Tinker WUs go so slowly. :(

    IBM does not go for that and clock for clock, the latest G3 processors have better floating point capabilities than the G4.

    When you get a Gromacs WU, you'll see how much better that core is. :)
     
  24. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #24
    Indeed either kill off the tinker units all together or update the tinker core.

    It really sucks... :eek:
     
  25. bousozoku thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #25
    I have asked them repeatedly to re-compile the Tinker core with newer tools. I didn't ask them to change it in any other way.

    I'm not sure whether they used a FORTRAN compiler, of which there are few on Mac OS X, or converted the code to C. If it's the latter method, they could re-compile it with the latest C compiler and find better efficiency. It should be worth a couple of hours work.
     

Share This Page