PC GAMESS SCF Benchmark.
According to Pople  and Schlegel  the cost of direct SCF scales with molecular size as N2.7, and conventional SCF as N3.5. Therefore, they advise to use only Direct SCF. Gaussian98W uses the Direct algorithm by default. However the GAMESS Manual  states: "the direct approach always requires more CPU time". However, Granovsky  says "If it's possible to perform the desired calculations using conventional (not direct) methods - use them". Which statement is true?
My numerical experiment  with the PC GAMESS [4,5,6,7] shows that the cost of SCF for the Direct and Conventional methods is N2.3 and N2.3, respectively, i.e. they are equal (see the diagram to the right). Why is the second scale smaller than Pople asserted? It is mainly due to the use of a new technology in PC GAMESS packing of AO integrals  (of course the idea isn't new, but PC GAMESS uses a better algorithm than other programs, e.g. Gaussian or GAMESS). Therefore, the bottleneck in SCF is widened at least twice.
After looking at these results my
colleague Alex Khalizov told me that they were wrong
because of different number of overlapping integrals in selected series of hydrocarbons.
|Consider now the relation between the number
of nonzero two-electron integrals and SCF calculation times (to the right).
As expected, this dependence is linear, but the line slopes are distinctly different. For the Direct SCF line the tangent is 3.38e-5, for the Conventional SCF it is 2.84e-5 and for the Packed Conventional SCF it is 1.70e-5. Thus, it is apparent that with the increasing number of integrals the Packed Conventional SCF calculation time grows slower than Conventional and Direct SCF time. Q.E.D.
Therefore, if you use PC GAMESS you can forget about the
(of course if you have not too small disk)
 Gaussian 98W Manual.
 H. B. Schlegel and M. J. Frisch, "Computational Bottlenecks in Molecular Orbital Calculations," in Theoretical and Computational Models for Organic Chemistry, Ed. J. S. Formosinho, I. G. Csizmadia and L. G. Arnaut (Kluwer Academic, The Netherlands, 1991) 5.
 Configuration of my computer is Celeron 333 MHz, 64 Mb RAM, 4.2 Gb HDD; 36 MFlop/sec.
 GAMESS Home Page
 PC GAMESS Home Page
 PC GAMESS Home Page Mirror
 Alex. A. Granovsky, Moscow State University.
 GAMESS Manual, Section 4 - Further Information (REFS.DOC)
P.S. If you would like to test my result on your own computer, input files are here. I would greatly appreciate if you could send me the results of your tests. I will summarize and post them. Also I welcome any questions and comments
P.P.S. If you have found any errors (syntactical, grammatical, notional or other), please e-mail me.
After appearing of my letter in CCL conference many people have visiting my page (approximatelly 200 in three days). Some of they have write to my. Below I have summarize all replies.
Received: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:10:30 +0500
From: Matt Challacombe email@example.com
Nice web page! I'd like to point out that it is now possible to perform SCF calculations that scale entirely as N, rather than N^2.x If you are interested, please see my web page for papers (new ones should be up soon).
All the best, Matt
+ Matt Challacombe, Ph.D. http://www.t12.lanl.gov/~mchalla/ +
+ Los Alamos National Laboratory email: firstname.lastname@example.org +
+ Theoretical Division vmail: (505) 698-4112 +
+ Group T-12, Mail Stop B268 phone: (505) 665-5905 +
+ Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 fax: (505) 665-3909 +
To my regret I can't get to the Matt's page. However I guess that scale smaller that N^2.x simply can be reached by storing integrals in memory. But this real only for very small molecules and basis sets.
Received: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:47:00 +0500
From: "Slawomir Janicki" email@example.com
As you requested I am sending you my corrections to your page. You did a great job!
Thanks for your effort.
Many thanks, Slawomir!
Received: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 21:36:15 +0500
From: John McKelvey firstname.lastname@example.org
I can only wonder how the conclusions you made woyuld differ as a function of CPU
speed. I would think that Direct SCF would be improved significantly for a faster chip.
What speed was the CPU you used in your tests?
Configuration of my computer is Celeron 333 MHz,
64 Mb RAM, 4.2 Gb HDD; 36 MFlop/sec.
Certainly, I would like to compare my result with other ones obtained at other platforms and processors. However, I have not access to many computers. Therefore, I have asked for tests of other systems on my page. If they would be are accessible, I could to do more complete analysis of SCF timing. I guess that speed of conventional SCF calculation is strongly depended from CPU/DISK ratio unlike direct SCF. If one have fast disk subsystem then conventional SCF is best choice. However, if one have power CPU but slow disk then direct SCF is more preferably.
Received: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 21:37:09 +0500
From: "Alex. A. Granovsky" email@example.com
I've already visited your pages. I only want to note the following point.
With the AO current implementation of AO integrals packing, there exists the theoretical limit for the degree of compression. Namely, 12 or 20 bytes (needed by GAMESS to store both the integral value and its four indices) will be packed to 4.5 bytes in the best case. Actually, instead of 4.5 bytes per integral we have in average approximately 5-5.5 bytes/integral.
Thus, the speed up should be asymptotically linear as compared with non packed case.
Very useful note. But I don't know packing method and don't say more.
Received: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 06:36:19 +0500
From: "Windus, Theresa L" Theresa.Windus@pnl.gov
You have done a very nice job of looking at the different methods in GAMESS. However, there is one point that you have missed in your analysis. The integral computations in GAMESS are slower than the integral computations in Gaussian. Because Gaussian computes integrals faster, disk I/O CAN be a bottleneck for the calculation (especially when there are not many high angular momentum basis functions in the basis set) and therefore make the scaling of the conventional method look worse. It wasn't clear to me what basis set you used, but if it is mostly s and p functions, I think you would find a different scaling in Gaussian where the direct method should scale better.
Hope this is makes sense.
At last, I have been explained why GAMESS have
scale different from Pople and Schlegel estimations.
About used basis set. It is 6-31G*, i.e. s,p and d functions.
However, why GAMESS is slower in integral computations than Gaussian? I worked with Gaussian, and it was slower than GAMESS on my tests. I am going to do some numerical experiments with Gaussian and compare it with GAMESS. I hope that I will do it soon. May be, it will make clear situation.
Received: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:08:31 +0500
From: "Windus, Theresa L" Theresa.Windus@pnl.gov
GAMESS uses a relatively old code using Rys polynomials to calculate the integrals. Gaussian uses newer and faster recursion relationships to calculate the integrals. It has been a while since I have checked this, but at one point the fast integrals in Gaussian were only used for direct calculations and their "old" integral code was used for conventional disk based methods. This, therefore, can also skew the scaling that you see in Gaussian alone. Again, I don't know if this is the current case.
It is pity that GAMESS has old code for integral computations. I want to belive that GAMESS will incorporate advanced method for integral evaluation. Thanks for explanation.