[gmx-users] Help on MD performance, GPU has less load than CPU.
mark.j.abraham at gmail.com
Wed Jul 12 18:15:26 CEST 2017
Sure. But who has data that shows that e.g. a free-energy calculation with
the defaults produces lower quality observables than you get with the
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:59 PM Téletchéa Stéphane <
stephane.teletchea at univ-nantes.fr> wrote:
> Le 11/07/2017 à 15:24, Mark Abraham a écrit :
> > Guessing wildly, the cost of your simulation is probably at least double
> > what the defaults would give, and for that cost, I'd want to know why.
> Estimated colleague,
> Since this is a wild guess, I'd think to add some guesses myself. I
> remember "some time" back having used a lower tolerance on Ewald for
> amber simulations (around amber 4/5/6 ...) and it was more common at
> this time I presume. This may also be linked to the fact that amber has
> a short cut-off at 8 angstrom for electrostatics ...
> Someone apparently "ill" at the time already found this stane in 2009:
> Out of my memroy, I remembered using 10-6 for Ewald tolerance in AMBER,
> and this is mentioned here:
> ... apparently linked to DNA simulation as found in JACS 117,4193 (1995)
> In short, this value may come in back and forth for "historical" reasons
> (and misuse, of course).
> Others may have additional comments :-)
> Assistant Professor in BioInformatics, UFIP, UMR 6286 CNRS, Team Protein
> Design In Silico
> UFR Sciences et Techniques, 2, rue de la Houssinière, Bât. 25, 44322
> Nantes cedex 03, France
> Tél : +33 251 125 636 / Fax : +33 251 125 632
> http://www.ufip.univ-nantes.fr/ - http://www.steletch.org
> Gromacs Users mailing list
> * Please search the archive at
> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-Users_List before
> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-users or
> send a mail to gmx-users-request at gromacs.org.
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-users