· Content
· News
· Articles
· Mailinglists
· Knowledgebase
· Trouble Tickets
· Files
· Glossary
· Links
· Compatibility Lists
· Forums
Welcome to our website
To take full advantage of all features you need to login or register. Registration is completely free and takes only a few seconds.
Wolfram Research Optimizes Mathematica for Linux on AMD64
Posted by: Jim on: 01/21/2004 04:15 PM [ Print | 24 comment(s) ]
David let me know that EE Times is running a press release from Wolfram about a version of Mathematica optimized for Linux on AMD64!
As a reflection of Wolfram Research's rigorous software engineering standards, Mathematica 5 is among the first technical computing platforms specifically optimized for the AMD64 architecture -- and it delivers impressive performance. The optimized Mathematica port outperforms a regular Linux version of Mathematica on AMD64 systems by up to 50 percent in typical scientific and technical calculations.Nice.
« AMD finally in the black · Wolfram Research Optimizes Mathematica for Linux on AMD64
· Beowulf for Itanium/Opteron »
Comment
|
i_wolf labhair dom as gaelige Posts: 2097 Joined: 2002-11-19 |
#26038 Posted on: 01/21/2004 09:46 PM
This is another nice nod to AMD. Its good to hear companies with a reputation like Wolfram Research putting the effort into getting the best out of A64. Hung like a donkey. Go like a horse! |
Comment
|
HEMI labhair dom as gaelige Posts: 2467 Joined: 2001-12-18 |
#26039 Posted on: 01/21/2004 10:55 PM
For those of you that are curious, Mathematica supports a pretty wide variety of platforms beyond Linux/AMD64. The Linux/Itanium port outperforms the Linux/x86 version on Itanium, too.  [url="http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/platforms.html"]A list[/url] of Mathematica's supported platforms is available.Unix is user-friendly; it's just picky about its friends. |
Comment
|
Selecter Registered User Posts: 68 Joined: 2004-01-07 |
#26040 Posted on: 01/21/2004 11:08 PM
Yeah, and dont forget Theo endorses the Mac G5 over all the other platforms to use Mathematica on. Mac's are totally ignored on this site - last I checked they have dual CPU's as well. Just a observation. 2CPU appears very biased against Apple. Pre-G5, you probably had a good reason, but now things have changed. Why dont you give Macs some coverage when they are due? :mad: Please note that I use Windows as well, XP and 2000 to be exact. I used to think Apple was a joke too, but they have made amazing strides in making that platform relevant again. X 10.3 is great and so are the G5's. The least you could do is give the Mac it's own sub forum instead of lumping it in with the likes of BeOS. They deserve better. |
Comment
|
Jim_ Administrator Posts: 3464 Joined: 2000-03-15 |
#26041 Posted on: 01/21/2004 11:51 PM
We actually have a friend on staff (Lambodlr) who posts Mac-related news from time-to-time. We'd love to test the gear but of course we don't have access to a new dual G5 machine and Apple's not going to send us one anytime soon. Recently, we discovered that one of our news posters may have just walked into a situation where he'll be able to play with a Dual G5 quite extensively so hopefully we'll get some coverage in that indirect way. He said he's already taken it apart to see how the thing ticks. :-) [url="http://www.2cpu.com"][size=1]2CPU.com[/url] - Because two are always better than one! [url="http://www.jimkirk.org"]jimkirk.org[/url] - Not a Myth any Longer. Just a Dad.[/size] |
Comment
|
dualboot_2xcpu hooked on sleeping pills Posts: 2397 Joined: 2001-07-16 |
#26042 Posted on: 01/22/2004 01:22 AM
If I remember correctly there have been posts about Macs and the like. I would venture to say that the fact that the Apple/Mac computers havent been adopted by many users is one of the following if not all: 1) Cost too much 2) Price / Performance ratio too low (debatable, but come on people do more than just photoshop. Granted they are an industry standard in movie edititing and music creation but still....) 3) Not an open standard like x86 PC's today. You cant go out and build your own Mac because the Os insnt portable to other hardware, it is only for proprietary Apple stuff. Also there is a lacking amount of software for the Mac, especially games which I play a lot. Back in the day, you would be hard pressed to find a decent video card for the Mac, but you could find one for any Windows / Linux based x86 PC because the drivers were there and the connections for the various Agp / Pci slots were compatible. 4) Blatently false advertising putting a distaste into the mouth for the platform in many. Other than that....2cpu is 2cpu and its up to jim and his cohorts to change. alex I finally have SMP. Looking for the next Mrs. Right now (c) 2004. HEMI. |
Comment
|
HEMI hooked on sleeping pills Posts: 2467 Joined: 2001-12-18 |
#26043 Posted on: 01/22/2004 02:52 AM
Macs are not totally ignored by this site. I remember Hacky/LamboDlr and Jim_ both posting a few news blurbs about Macs in the past while. There was the one about the Mac vs. the PC, the new G5 Xserves, dual Opterons vs. dual G5s, a post about G5/Power5 stuff in general, posts about the Big Mac cluster...You get the point. Honestly, what more do Mac people want? "Hrm, wow, there's a speed bump in the dual G5 Macs!" Most people reading this site don't use macs, and I'd wager that most Mac users don't have dual G5s. The hardware itself isn't that interesting, just expensive. IBM is going to start building (supposedly cheap) dual PowerPC 970-based Linux machines that will probably be comparable to the Macs performance-wise, which will probably draw some more attention to the G5s... Unix is user-friendly; it's just picky about its friends. |
Comment
|
Selecter Registered User Posts: 68 Joined: 2004-01-07 |
#26044 Posted on: 01/22/2004 05:16 AM
I know what I want: how about a seperate Mac / OS X sub forum instead of being lumped in with all the "other" OS's, like BeOS, Solaris, etc? Mac OS X surely commands more than being lumped in with "other". It's the most used *nix distro in the world
(ok, FreeBSD, dont split hairs on me ) Jim, I'll tell ya what. I'll mail in any items I see having to do with *DUAL* cpu macs from now on that I think are worthy of note to SMP mac users and we can see if my assertion is true. Maybe it is as you say just having a lack of Mac folks on the site, but I just want the dual CPU mac front treated the same way as the other platforms. Dualboot: you are proving my point. Everything you said about macs pre G5 is probably true - mac hardware was slow and pretty crappy and over priced becuase of that. But with the G5's everything has changed. Wintel users need to see the picture as it is now, not this time last year. This time last year the mac was a sorry state of things. Thank god to IBM. And BTW, Hemi, at the time Theo was at the Stevenote back when the G5 came out, he *DID* say right up on stage for the world + God to hear that the G5 was faster running Mathematica than any currently shipping PC *and* that it was faster than all of the high end unix workstations that cost 4 times as much. It's on the video. Anyways I just want even handed treatment for SMP mac use. Thats all. Nothing more. I'll take you up on your offer , Jim, and thanks. |
Comment
|
Hooz Administrator Posts: 2337 Joined: 2000-03-29 |
#26045 Posted on: 01/22/2004 05:38 AM
Let's see... There are three frontpage Mac related posts in this news archive page, one the week before that, two more on the page before that. All within the month of December. You're right. We must hate Apple :rolleyes: [size=1][url="http://www.2cpu.com"]2CPU.com[/url] - Because two are always better than one! Are you folding? [url="http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/team_summary.php?s=&t=3074"]2CPU.com Folding@Home Team[/url] [url="http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=19979"]My Heatware[/url][/size] |
Comment
|
dualboot_2xcpu hooked on sleeping pills Posts: 2397 Joined: 2001-07-16 |
#26046 Posted on: 01/22/2004 06:00 AM
Gotta love sarcasm. As for Selecter the mac still has a long way to go. Prices still must come down, as I can build a computer from newegg for cheaper than if I bought a Mac and it would do the same stuff photoshop etc faster. As far as needing to see the light I dont have to do shit. As far as I know, I will continue to use a PC, until Apple actually comes out with something that does indeed blow me away to switch. OSX is a step in the right direction, but for all practical purposes I am still a lintel/wintel winamd/ linamd user. alex I finally have SMP. Looking for the next Mrs. Right now (c) 2004. HEMI. |
Comment
|
Jim_ Administrator Posts: 3464 Joined: 2000-03-15 |
#26047 Posted on: 01/22/2004 08:28 AM
Now you have to tell your Mac-owning friends to swing by and start posting in there. :-) [url="http://www.2cpu.com"][size=1]2CPU.com[/url] - Because two are always better than one! [url="http://www.jimkirk.org"]jimkirk.org[/url] - Not a Myth any Longer. Just a Dad.[/size] |
Comment
|
Selecter Registered User Posts: 68 Joined: 2004-01-07 |
#26048 Posted on: 01/22/2004 09:46 AM
Sweet! Props for having a open mind and listening. Seriously, I will make every effort to post news about dual CPU Macs to that forum and be around to give whatever I can to poeple that are curious about SMP Mac's and related info. It's nice to be simply put on an equal footing.  tis all I wanted.
I own and use Windows boxen too - but Apple has made such advances with OS X and the G5 I felt compelled to get one. I expect quite a few others have recently done the same. I also have some folding@home experience on dual G5 that may be useful. G5 are killer on folding. Dualboot: Most people *dont* build their computers. You and I do, but most dont. They buy em just like folks buy Apples. You can always build a Windows or Linux box cheaper - thats understood. And why so defensive? I never said you had to go buy a mac - just that Apples position has changed pretty drastically since last year at this time, and using outdated arguments based on that time frame ( that was true then) may not be true now. Anyways, I shall now go play in my new sandbox Thanks Jim |
Comment
|
Jim_ Administrator Posts: 3464 Joined: 2000-03-15 |
#26049 Posted on: 01/22/2004 10:23 AM
[url="http://www.2cpu.com"][size=1]2CPU.com[/url] - Because two are always better than one! [url="http://www.jimkirk.org"]jimkirk.org[/url] - Not a Myth any Longer. Just a Dad.[/size] |
Comment
|
dualboot_2xcpu hooked on sleeping pills Posts: 2397 Joined: 2001-07-16 |
#26050 Posted on: 01/22/2004 11:29 AM
I reacted as such not because I am a wintel zealot or anything of the sort. It is just that I dont think that the Apple G5 is all that good really. The whole platform suffers just as linux does, with the lack of software and other things. alex I finally have SMP. Looking for the next Mrs. Right now (c) 2004. HEMI. |
Comment
|
dualboot_2xcpu hooked on sleeping pills Posts: 2397 Joined: 2001-07-16 |
#26051 Posted on: 01/22/2004 11:31 AM
Props to Jim_ for creating the Mac forum. alex I finally have SMP. Looking for the next Mrs. Right now (c) 2004. HEMI. |
Comment
|
LRSeriesIII Aspiring Rocket Scientist Posts: 1128 Joined: 2002-08-29 |
#26052 Posted on: 01/22/2004 11:40 AM
On a slightly different topic, has anyone heard anything regarding performance of MATLAB on x86-64 hardware (and Mac hardware for that matter)? ->Computers ->Folding for team 3074 |
Comment
|
Fr0st Registered User Posts: 493 Joined: 2001-01-05 |
#26053 Posted on: 01/22/2004 01:29 PM
A little more back on topic- this is exactly the kind of application that can truly benefit from 64-bit computing, as opposed to many applications that won't show any real performance increase just by being recompiled for a 64-bit CPU. The press release mentions >4GB addressing, but 64-bit integer support is just as crucial for something like Mathematica, if not more so. [URL=http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-1.html]Ars Technica's article[/URL] on what 64-bit (specifically x86-64) will or won't do for you... Nothing is true, everything is permitted. |
Comment
|
i_wolf labhair dom as gaelige Posts: 2097 Joined: 2002-11-19 |
#26054 Posted on: 01/22/2004 06:51 PM
just a few things. First and foremost back to the topic. the G5 presently is the fastest of the x86, itanium, opteron at running mathematica version 5. Theo himself went on record and said this. This is probably because its one of the few 3rd party apps that is optimized for the G5. As for the lack of "software and its not a platform to blow people away" comments. This would have been a fair comment prior to os x and certainly prior to G5. OS X has opened the mac platform up to lots and lots of high quality open source apps. A lot of which have been given their own particular port to os x... see fink and darwin ports. As for the hardware.. yes there is no point having great hardware if there is no software to run on it... i reckon at the moment they have a great combo of great software and plenty of it (especially when you consider the open source apps) and a phenominal platform. There is nothing stopping anyone here with a G5 going and downloading source packages and then compiling with XLC or XLF (im pluggin these bad boys since they tend to generate code that is two to three times faster than GCC3.3 on G5 and most cases ive seen they have no compatibility issues with GCC  )
As for it not being an Open architecture. Apple are using Open standards in their hardware and the days of appletalk printers with proprietary printer connection is over. But Dualboot you are right , your upgrade options are limited. Presently i think there is one company that specialises in processor and mother board upgrades for macs... powerlogix. But that in itself raises another point... Mac's tend to have a longer life span... Newer software tends to have less of a hard time running on older hardware on Mac side than it does on wintel side. As for the folkes at 2cpu being biased? Certainly not! Some people in the forums here might be biased one way or the other, Intel, AMD, Apple, SUN, SGI etc... but not the site itself. Hung like a donkey. Go like a horse! |
Comment
|
LRSeriesIII Aspiring Rocket Scientist Posts: 1128 Joined: 2002-08-29 |
#26055 Posted on: 01/22/2004 08:30 PM
MaximumPC and MacAddict (I know not the two publications with the best reputations ) ran a benchmarking competition between the P4EE, Athlon64FX, and G5 (dual 2Ghz) for MaxPC and P4 3.2 (normal) and G5 for MacAddict a while back. I am pretty sure that the Mac lagged behind the P4EE and the Athlon64FX in the Mathematica test they ran. Now, the benchmark was a script someone else had developed, and I do not remember exactly where it was from (I will look it up when I get home), but I just thought that might be interesting to add. Not that I am saying the G5 was not the fastest thing in Mathematica when it was released, just that in this particular benchmark it looked like it was not.
However, all of this was before Mathematica was optimized for the G5. It would not surprise me in the least if G5 optimizations put the G5 ahead. ->Computers ->Folding for team 3074 |
Comment
|
i_wolf labhair dom as gaelige Posts: 2097 Joined: 2002-11-19 |
#26056 Posted on: 01/23/2004 09:25 AM
The Mathematica they benched wasn't actually version 5. Version 5 was avail to buy with G5 optimizations well after the G5 launched. It was only demoed at launch against a dual 3GHz Xeon. I think it was around the 19th September that Mathematica 5 was launched. Those bench's that you were talking about were of Mathematica v4 on pc and v3 on mac! I belive they came from Maximum PC??? rings a bell. Either way another fair test?! :S Funnily enough it also only lagged by a small margin. And the Mac was running Jaguar in the bench i saw! Having said that, i believe that mathematica v5 is gcc3.3 compiled and optimized for G5, according to those that were at the keynote and went to the developer conference held after anyway but thats word of mouth. Eitherway as of the current version optimized for all platforms, the G5 is the fastest machine to run it sub $10,000 according to theodore grey himself at the show. When they used a standard wolfram research benchmark againts the dual Xeon 3.06GHz it was 2.5 to 3 times faster than the xeon. Both machines configured with 512 megs ram. That was running on a jaguar demo system! It seams a little optimization really turns out well on that platform. Hung like a donkey. Go like a horse! |
Comment
|
dualboot_2xcpu hooked on sleeping pills Posts: 2397 Joined: 2001-07-16 |
#26057 Posted on: 01/23/2004 09:29 AM
yepp. PC970 is a good chip....wouldnt mind one but I will have to stick to what I know. alex I finally have SMP. Looking for the next Mrs. Right now (c) 2004. HEMI. |
Comment
|
HEMI hooked on sleeping pills Posts: 2467 Joined: 2001-12-18 |
#26058 Posted on: 01/23/2004 09:42 AM
One thing to note is the "G5-optimized" Mathematica is still only 32-bit. The AMD64 port is a full-fledged 64-bit port...Not really a factor for most things, but for serious number-crunching it may become an issue. Performance-wise, the Mac (G5) port and Linux/AMD64 port are pretty neck-and-neck performance-wise, running some benchmarks (which one of the release engineers did for me this afternoon). Release versions of 5.0 were used for benchmarking. I can't say much more without violating NDAs (if you haven't figured it out yet I work at Wolfram). Unix is user-friendly; it's just picky about its friends. |
Comment
|
dualboot_2xcpu hooked on sleeping pills Posts: 2397 Joined: 2001-07-16 |
#26059 Posted on: 01/23/2004 09:44 AM
Hotdamn post some independant G5 vs Opteorn vs P4 Xeon benches to settle the score will ya? alex I finally have SMP. Looking for the next Mrs. Right now (c) 2004. HEMI. |
Comment
|
Selecter Registered User Posts: 68 Joined: 2004-01-07 |
#26060 Posted on: 01/23/2004 10:05 AM
Hemi, I figgered when you said something about seeing Theo walk around with a Powerbook that you just may be hangin about Wolfram. Cool.
Anyways, I just had to stand up for the Mac when I saw the news post on Mathematica for Linux.....I was like.....Wait a minute, where's the Mac side?!?!? Becuase of what I had seen on the Stevenote, ya know. I felt like there was a side of the story not being told. Did you guys see the ready made cluster Apple introduced today? http://www.apple.com/xserve/cluster/wgcluster.html drool. |
Comment
|
LRSeriesIII Aspiring Rocket Scientist Posts: 1128 Joined: 2002-08-29 |
#26061 Posted on: 01/25/2004 03:08 AM
The benchmarks I saw were in the December 2003 edition of MaximumPC and the January 2004 edition of MacAddict. Both publications claimed to be using version 5.0 of Mathematica, but noted that the version they were using was not optimized for the G5 and that a properly G5 optimized version was on the way. They both used a benchmark from Stefan Steinhaus. In the MaximumPC article, the Apple Dual G5 (2Ghz) is listed as completing the benchmark in 997 seconds, the Pentium4EE they benchmarked was listed as completing it in 639 seconds, and teh Athlon64FX-51 they benchmarked was listed as completing it in 572 seconds. The MacAddict article did not give specific numbers, but simply showed bar graphs, but their numbers for the dual G5 and the P4 (non-EE) they benchmarked appear to be inline with MaximumPC's posted results. While MacAddict did spend more time pointing out that the version of Mathematica 5.0 they were using was not optimized for the G5 yet, their article was in agreement with MaximumPC's article that this particular in this particular benchmark, in the un-optimized version of Mathematica, the dual G5 is significantly slower than the top end PC processors. I do not claim that this means anything for the current performance of the G5s in Mathematica, I just wanted to clarify my earlier statement. ->Computers ->Folding for team 3074 |