Talk:Molecular modeling on GPUs

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computer graphics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Chemistry Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

ATI?

I know F@H is done on ATI GPUs (I do it) which is molecular modeling, but this article has no information about it. --98.220.250.244 (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not tere yet

This article is presenting molecular modelling on GPU as a reality, I tend to disagree, not yet, it is very promising but in beta test level. I think it is a bit wrong to cite OpenCL as the specifications haven't been finalised yet and that it is a high level API to generate pseudo code, as far as I am aware modelling code using the GPU is mostly written in nVidia CUDA and possibly ATI Close to metal. This is certainly the case for NAMD, VMD and OpenMM that are partially ported to CUDA. Also all this GPU code is still in beta and the GPU support is quite limited, for example the OpenMM version of GROMACS only works for non-bonded interactions and the preview version was only suporting implicit water. This is far from being at the level of production simulations. There are also some stability issues, I have been testing NAMD and GROMACS on nVidia Tesla C1060 cards and it is far from being that good for larger system yet. This article is a bit disingeneous as the technology is still very embryonic, though very promising. Blastwizard (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCL definitely should not be here. Fortunately it was removed.

I see the periodic attempts advertising of some inappropriate things here, but nevertheless can not agree that the article itself disingenuous. Already there are many real programs using this technology. I personally use them for my calculations. It works.P99am (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If OpenMM only works for non-bonded interactions than this is a good idea. There is no need moves on the GPU the whole program.P99am (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCL is completely capable of Molecular Modelling. Whatever past arguments there were are no longer the case. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, OpenCL has a very limited use, while the calculations in CUDA are ubiquitous.P99am (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by a "very limited use". Octopus for example uses OpenCL. The topic is Molecular modeling on GPUs not Molecular modeling on CUDA. The article as it stands does not show that. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first example that I heard. Thank you. If you have this information it would be nice to add in article.

Why is this edit by the IP address being reverted? [1]IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add as well that nothing was specifically enabled by CUDA, OpenCL etc. you were always able to write boilerplate to achieve the same - thats not just hypothetical either, its precisely how GPGPU became a thing at all... 18:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion?

Does this really deserve an article? It doesn't really give any reasoning why Molecular modelling on GPUs is particularly notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that we've been waiting for a long time. As soon as the NVIDIA published CUDA technology, immediately came programs using it in the molecular modeling. Now, almost all well-known programs are using this technology and several new specialized appeared.P99am (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address my notability concerns. Plenty of different fields make use of GPUs extensively. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not quite understand the question. I believe that each person professionally engaged in molecular modeling at least aware of it. Is this a notability?P99am (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GPUs may be commonly used for molecular modelling, but for a topic to exist on wikipedia WP:GNG must be satisfied. Molecular modelling uses many different architectures but for molecular modelling on GPUs something must exist to show why it in particular is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specify more precisely what you see the problem? What you see inconsistency to WP:GNG?

(No many different architectures in common use. There are supercomputers, clusters, personal computers and GPU. Each of them deserves the article.)P99am (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article sounds like non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. You do not make an article on each type, you add them as section to existing articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why cross-categorization? This is one well-defined subject. Moreover, the famous subject. P99am (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GPGPU is a notable subject, Molecular modelling is a notable subject. This is the cross-categorization. I still think the topic is not notable in and off itself. I don't propose the content be deleted, just merged into another article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equally well you might said that the railroad is a cross-categorization of the road, and iron. But let's wait what others chemists will say. P99am (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

The article name is not grammatically correct. It should read Molecular Modeling on GPUs. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph, whole article, feels wrong

The writing style is strange, but also some of the content is incorrect or misleading. This entire page feels out of place tbh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.212.181 (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FIXIT? Sizeofint (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Molecular modeling on GPUs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121101500/http://www.pwmat.com/pwmat to http://www.pwmat.com/pwmat

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]