Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!bones!fsfrick From: fsfrick@bones.lerc.nasa.gov (David Fricker) Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix Subject: Re: xengine performance on RS6000 Message-ID: <1991Apr17.202630.28470@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> Date: 17 Apr 91 20:26:30 GMT References: <1991Apr17.190136.17974@nrcnet0.nrc.ca> Sender: news@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov Reply-To: fsfrick@bones.UUCP (David Fricker) Organization: NASA/Lewis Research Center, Cleveland Lines: 34 In article <1991Apr17.190136.17974@nrcnet0.nrc.ca> ng@cfd.di.nrc.ca writes: >We have tried out the xengine on our RS6000 model 530 running 3003. >The system is configured with 64meg of main memory and a 24-bit, 3D >and Z-buffer graphics subsystem. > >The outcome, which ranges from 41 to 49, is extremely disappointing. >We also have a Silicon Graphics 4D/25G and a SUN 3/60. Both perform >about twice as good as the IBM. > >However somebody has claimed that on a 550, the xengine runs at 333. >Has anybody tried it on their RS6000 ? > >I suspect it could due to something not configured right in our system. >Any opinion welcome. > In a related vein, we've done some 'benchmarking' using local programs on an RS6000 model 530 & various SGI Irises. The relative performance figures are _very_ strange. On one CFD program doing a 2D grid, an SGI Personal Iris (4D/25) outperforms my RS6000 model 530, while a 3D grid run has my model 530 outperforming a 4D/340VGX Iris! (The 340 means the iris has 4 processors.) Both programs were written by the same person & solve roughly the same problem--vortex sheet rollup--but one program solves it in 2D while the other solves it in 3D. Any ideas as to why these relative performance figures are so strange? david fricker -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Fricker | phone: 216-433-5960 NASA Lewis Research Center | M.S. 5-11 Cleveland, Ohio 44135 | email: fsfrick@bones.lerc.nasa.gov