What computer would be fastest for Mathematica Home Edition?Which processor and graphics card to use for my Mathematica licenseBest Mac for MathematicaWhat is the fastest way to find an integer-valued row echelon form for a matrix with integer entries?Launching remote kernels - will it help RAM needs?What is the fastest way to maintain a large set of expressions?Making simultaneous equation solving more efficientBenchmarking Mathematica performance on the Raspberry Pistrange timing behaviorWhat is the fastest way to compute digits of $pi$ using Mathematica?What is the fastest way to simplify $sqrta^2$ for $a>0$How many cores can I use with my license?How can I speed up Mathematica calculations?

Explain Ant-Man's "not it" scene from Avengers: Endgame

What's the most polite way to tell a manager "shut up and let me work"?

How do I truncate a csv file?

Have powerful mythological heroes ever run away or been deeply afraid?

What is the intuition behind uniform continuity?

Is there an evolutionary advantage to having two heads?

Can a helicopter mask itself from Radar?

Why does the UK have more political parties than the US?

Is there a rule that prohibits us from using 2 possessives in a row?

The term for the person/group a political party aligns themselves with to appear concerned about the general public

Why is Colorado so different politically from nearby states?

Does a component pouch automatically contain components?

What is a simple, physical situation where complex numbers emerge naturally?

Opposite of "Squeaky wheel gets the grease"

Can The Malloreon be read without first reading The Belgariad?

Can an old DSLR be upgraded to match modern smartphone image quality

Are academic associations obliged to comply with the US government?

Creating Fictional Slavic Place Names

Why were the Night's Watch required to be celibate?

Is having a hidden directory under /etc safe?

Recording the inputs of a command and producing a list of them later on

How to detach yourself from a character you're going to kill?

Rotated Position of Integers

How can I offer a test ride while selling a bike?



What computer would be fastest for Mathematica Home Edition?


Which processor and graphics card to use for my Mathematica licenseBest Mac for MathematicaWhat is the fastest way to find an integer-valued row echelon form for a matrix with integer entries?Launching remote kernels - will it help RAM needs?What is the fastest way to maintain a large set of expressions?Making simultaneous equation solving more efficientBenchmarking Mathematica performance on the Raspberry Pistrange timing behaviorWhat is the fastest way to compute digits of $pi$ using Mathematica?What is the fastest way to simplify $sqrta^2$ for $a>0$How many cores can I use with my license?How can I speed up Mathematica calculations?













6












$begingroup$


I am planning the purchase of a new computer for use with Mathematica Home Edition, which is limited, as far as I understand, to two simultaneous kernels. Can anyone recommend particular hardware?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Related: Best Mac for Mathematica and Which processor and graphics card to use for my Mathematica license
    $endgroup$
    – C. E.
    Apr 14 at 19:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Common recommendations are to get a lot of RAM and SSD.
    $endgroup$
    – C. E.
    Apr 14 at 19:15










  • $begingroup$
    I agree with comment above! RAM and drive size is a definite consideration issue. I recently purchased a new MacBook Pro 15" with 16 MB RAM and 1 TB SSD. I regularly perform analysis on time based data files that are hundreds of mega bytes in size. This MacBook Pro is better than my work desktop system. The biggest issue for me is RAM. I need to get a lot data in memory where I can perform the Mathematica operations. I say go with as much RAM, drive, and processor as your wallet will allow. Mathematica runs great on MacOS.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph
    Apr 14 at 19:35















6












$begingroup$


I am planning the purchase of a new computer for use with Mathematica Home Edition, which is limited, as far as I understand, to two simultaneous kernels. Can anyone recommend particular hardware?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Related: Best Mac for Mathematica and Which processor and graphics card to use for my Mathematica license
    $endgroup$
    – C. E.
    Apr 14 at 19:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Common recommendations are to get a lot of RAM and SSD.
    $endgroup$
    – C. E.
    Apr 14 at 19:15










  • $begingroup$
    I agree with comment above! RAM and drive size is a definite consideration issue. I recently purchased a new MacBook Pro 15" with 16 MB RAM and 1 TB SSD. I regularly perform analysis on time based data files that are hundreds of mega bytes in size. This MacBook Pro is better than my work desktop system. The biggest issue for me is RAM. I need to get a lot data in memory where I can perform the Mathematica operations. I say go with as much RAM, drive, and processor as your wallet will allow. Mathematica runs great on MacOS.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph
    Apr 14 at 19:35













6












6








6


1



$begingroup$


I am planning the purchase of a new computer for use with Mathematica Home Edition, which is limited, as far as I understand, to two simultaneous kernels. Can anyone recommend particular hardware?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am planning the purchase of a new computer for use with Mathematica Home Edition, which is limited, as far as I understand, to two simultaneous kernels. Can anyone recommend particular hardware?







performance-tuning computer cpu






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 14 at 15:02









Henrik Schumacher

63.2k587176




63.2k587176










asked Apr 14 at 13:47









Ralph DratmanRalph Dratman

870819




870819











  • $begingroup$
    Related: Best Mac for Mathematica and Which processor and graphics card to use for my Mathematica license
    $endgroup$
    – C. E.
    Apr 14 at 19:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Common recommendations are to get a lot of RAM and SSD.
    $endgroup$
    – C. E.
    Apr 14 at 19:15










  • $begingroup$
    I agree with comment above! RAM and drive size is a definite consideration issue. I recently purchased a new MacBook Pro 15" with 16 MB RAM and 1 TB SSD. I regularly perform analysis on time based data files that are hundreds of mega bytes in size. This MacBook Pro is better than my work desktop system. The biggest issue for me is RAM. I need to get a lot data in memory where I can perform the Mathematica operations. I say go with as much RAM, drive, and processor as your wallet will allow. Mathematica runs great on MacOS.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph
    Apr 14 at 19:35
















  • $begingroup$
    Related: Best Mac for Mathematica and Which processor and graphics card to use for my Mathematica license
    $endgroup$
    – C. E.
    Apr 14 at 19:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Common recommendations are to get a lot of RAM and SSD.
    $endgroup$
    – C. E.
    Apr 14 at 19:15










  • $begingroup$
    I agree with comment above! RAM and drive size is a definite consideration issue. I recently purchased a new MacBook Pro 15" with 16 MB RAM and 1 TB SSD. I regularly perform analysis on time based data files that are hundreds of mega bytes in size. This MacBook Pro is better than my work desktop system. The biggest issue for me is RAM. I need to get a lot data in memory where I can perform the Mathematica operations. I say go with as much RAM, drive, and processor as your wallet will allow. Mathematica runs great on MacOS.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph
    Apr 14 at 19:35















$begingroup$
Related: Best Mac for Mathematica and Which processor and graphics card to use for my Mathematica license
$endgroup$
– C. E.
Apr 14 at 19:13




$begingroup$
Related: Best Mac for Mathematica and Which processor and graphics card to use for my Mathematica license
$endgroup$
– C. E.
Apr 14 at 19:13




1




1




$begingroup$
Common recommendations are to get a lot of RAM and SSD.
$endgroup$
– C. E.
Apr 14 at 19:15




$begingroup$
Common recommendations are to get a lot of RAM and SSD.
$endgroup$
– C. E.
Apr 14 at 19:15












$begingroup$
I agree with comment above! RAM and drive size is a definite consideration issue. I recently purchased a new MacBook Pro 15" with 16 MB RAM and 1 TB SSD. I regularly perform analysis on time based data files that are hundreds of mega bytes in size. This MacBook Pro is better than my work desktop system. The biggest issue for me is RAM. I need to get a lot data in memory where I can perform the Mathematica operations. I say go with as much RAM, drive, and processor as your wallet will allow. Mathematica runs great on MacOS.
$endgroup$
– Joseph
Apr 14 at 19:35




$begingroup$
I agree with comment above! RAM and drive size is a definite consideration issue. I recently purchased a new MacBook Pro 15" with 16 MB RAM and 1 TB SSD. I regularly perform analysis on time based data files that are hundreds of mega bytes in size. This MacBook Pro is better than my work desktop system. The biggest issue for me is RAM. I need to get a lot data in memory where I can perform the Mathematica operations. I say go with as much RAM, drive, and processor as your wallet will allow. Mathematica runs great on MacOS.
$endgroup$
– Joseph
Apr 14 at 19:35










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















13












$begingroup$

It is right, you can run only two Mathematica kernels at once in the Home Edition. But whether this is an actual limitation (and whether you should prefer a CPU with high single-core throughput) depends on what you are about to do with Mathematica.



I can only speak for my personal scope of application which is numerics. Here I seldomly find the Parallel-framework helpful, as Compiled code with options RuntimeAttributes -> Listable and Parallelization -> True usually scales much better than Parallel and friends. Such parallelized code is sped up by Intel MKL (and OpenMP?) outside of the Mathematica kernel. Even better is to use vectorized code for linear algebra; such is accelerated also by Intel MKL and such low level libraries as BLAS. The hardware ressources used are also independent of the number of Mathematica kernels.
So, for numerical computations, you may enjoy mostly all the benefits of a fat multi core CPU, even with the Home Edition.



Things might be different for vast symbolic computations, though, or when you are forced to run slow built-in functions that are not parallelized themselves and that you cannot reimplement yourselves more efficiently.



If you are interested in neural network facilities, you might prefer NVidia graphics cards over those by AMD since only CUDA, not OpenCL is supported. Anyways, most algorithms in Mathematica are not optimized for GPUs, so apart from the very localized application of neural networks, also the particular choice of GPU does not matter much.



In think the only general advice that one can give is: Having lots of memory is always a good idea and does not harm in any case. Apart from that, I doubt that it is a good idea to build your new machine depending on your Mathematica license.



Addendum



A propos Intel MKL: I really hate to say this (and it might cost me further downvotes), but as far as numerics in Mathematica are considered, one should keep in mind that Intel CPUs might be preferable over AMD CPUs just because Intel MKL is optimized for Intel hardware (and rumor has it that AMD processors are nerfed in MKL). I cannot quantify the difference in performance/price ratio, though; I just wanted to make you aware of that.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Might you elaborate on what make Mma's Parallel frameowrk "almost useless" in your view?
    $endgroup$
    – Alan
    Apr 14 at 15:09










  • $begingroup$
    I do use the parallel tools a lot. I would not call them useless at all. It is true that parallelizing tight inner loops will often not provide much speedup (sometimes it will though), but parallelization is quite useful for running a slow function many times (e.g. batch processing).
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 15:15






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alan Okay, I admit, that was a bit opinionated. I rephrased the statement and also detailed out my argumentation.
    $endgroup$
    – Henrik Schumacher
    Apr 14 at 15:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "I have the tendency not to use slow functions". What I meant was that a loop (Table, Map) is worth parallelizing if each iteration takes a noticeable time. In these cases, it can provide a significant speedup. If each iteration takes 10^-6 seconds, then it won't. If you have a big enough problem, then it will always take a while to run. People run highly optimized C programs for days on HPC clusters :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 16:28






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    E.g. last time I needed to do some image processing. Just a PeronaMalikFilter will often take a noticeable amount of time. I had hundreds of images. Parallelization was a huge help. But only the outermost loop was parallelized (i.e. batch-process all images).
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 16:30











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "387"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f195184%2fwhat-computer-would-be-fastest-for-mathematica-home-edition%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









13












$begingroup$

It is right, you can run only two Mathematica kernels at once in the Home Edition. But whether this is an actual limitation (and whether you should prefer a CPU with high single-core throughput) depends on what you are about to do with Mathematica.



I can only speak for my personal scope of application which is numerics. Here I seldomly find the Parallel-framework helpful, as Compiled code with options RuntimeAttributes -> Listable and Parallelization -> True usually scales much better than Parallel and friends. Such parallelized code is sped up by Intel MKL (and OpenMP?) outside of the Mathematica kernel. Even better is to use vectorized code for linear algebra; such is accelerated also by Intel MKL and such low level libraries as BLAS. The hardware ressources used are also independent of the number of Mathematica kernels.
So, for numerical computations, you may enjoy mostly all the benefits of a fat multi core CPU, even with the Home Edition.



Things might be different for vast symbolic computations, though, or when you are forced to run slow built-in functions that are not parallelized themselves and that you cannot reimplement yourselves more efficiently.



If you are interested in neural network facilities, you might prefer NVidia graphics cards over those by AMD since only CUDA, not OpenCL is supported. Anyways, most algorithms in Mathematica are not optimized for GPUs, so apart from the very localized application of neural networks, also the particular choice of GPU does not matter much.



In think the only general advice that one can give is: Having lots of memory is always a good idea and does not harm in any case. Apart from that, I doubt that it is a good idea to build your new machine depending on your Mathematica license.



Addendum



A propos Intel MKL: I really hate to say this (and it might cost me further downvotes), but as far as numerics in Mathematica are considered, one should keep in mind that Intel CPUs might be preferable over AMD CPUs just because Intel MKL is optimized for Intel hardware (and rumor has it that AMD processors are nerfed in MKL). I cannot quantify the difference in performance/price ratio, though; I just wanted to make you aware of that.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Might you elaborate on what make Mma's Parallel frameowrk "almost useless" in your view?
    $endgroup$
    – Alan
    Apr 14 at 15:09










  • $begingroup$
    I do use the parallel tools a lot. I would not call them useless at all. It is true that parallelizing tight inner loops will often not provide much speedup (sometimes it will though), but parallelization is quite useful for running a slow function many times (e.g. batch processing).
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 15:15






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alan Okay, I admit, that was a bit opinionated. I rephrased the statement and also detailed out my argumentation.
    $endgroup$
    – Henrik Schumacher
    Apr 14 at 15:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "I have the tendency not to use slow functions". What I meant was that a loop (Table, Map) is worth parallelizing if each iteration takes a noticeable time. In these cases, it can provide a significant speedup. If each iteration takes 10^-6 seconds, then it won't. If you have a big enough problem, then it will always take a while to run. People run highly optimized C programs for days on HPC clusters :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 16:28






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    E.g. last time I needed to do some image processing. Just a PeronaMalikFilter will often take a noticeable amount of time. I had hundreds of images. Parallelization was a huge help. But only the outermost loop was parallelized (i.e. batch-process all images).
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 16:30















13












$begingroup$

It is right, you can run only two Mathematica kernels at once in the Home Edition. But whether this is an actual limitation (and whether you should prefer a CPU with high single-core throughput) depends on what you are about to do with Mathematica.



I can only speak for my personal scope of application which is numerics. Here I seldomly find the Parallel-framework helpful, as Compiled code with options RuntimeAttributes -> Listable and Parallelization -> True usually scales much better than Parallel and friends. Such parallelized code is sped up by Intel MKL (and OpenMP?) outside of the Mathematica kernel. Even better is to use vectorized code for linear algebra; such is accelerated also by Intel MKL and such low level libraries as BLAS. The hardware ressources used are also independent of the number of Mathematica kernels.
So, for numerical computations, you may enjoy mostly all the benefits of a fat multi core CPU, even with the Home Edition.



Things might be different for vast symbolic computations, though, or when you are forced to run slow built-in functions that are not parallelized themselves and that you cannot reimplement yourselves more efficiently.



If you are interested in neural network facilities, you might prefer NVidia graphics cards over those by AMD since only CUDA, not OpenCL is supported. Anyways, most algorithms in Mathematica are not optimized for GPUs, so apart from the very localized application of neural networks, also the particular choice of GPU does not matter much.



In think the only general advice that one can give is: Having lots of memory is always a good idea and does not harm in any case. Apart from that, I doubt that it is a good idea to build your new machine depending on your Mathematica license.



Addendum



A propos Intel MKL: I really hate to say this (and it might cost me further downvotes), but as far as numerics in Mathematica are considered, one should keep in mind that Intel CPUs might be preferable over AMD CPUs just because Intel MKL is optimized for Intel hardware (and rumor has it that AMD processors are nerfed in MKL). I cannot quantify the difference in performance/price ratio, though; I just wanted to make you aware of that.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Might you elaborate on what make Mma's Parallel frameowrk "almost useless" in your view?
    $endgroup$
    – Alan
    Apr 14 at 15:09










  • $begingroup$
    I do use the parallel tools a lot. I would not call them useless at all. It is true that parallelizing tight inner loops will often not provide much speedup (sometimes it will though), but parallelization is quite useful for running a slow function many times (e.g. batch processing).
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 15:15






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alan Okay, I admit, that was a bit opinionated. I rephrased the statement and also detailed out my argumentation.
    $endgroup$
    – Henrik Schumacher
    Apr 14 at 15:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "I have the tendency not to use slow functions". What I meant was that a loop (Table, Map) is worth parallelizing if each iteration takes a noticeable time. In these cases, it can provide a significant speedup. If each iteration takes 10^-6 seconds, then it won't. If you have a big enough problem, then it will always take a while to run. People run highly optimized C programs for days on HPC clusters :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 16:28






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    E.g. last time I needed to do some image processing. Just a PeronaMalikFilter will often take a noticeable amount of time. I had hundreds of images. Parallelization was a huge help. But only the outermost loop was parallelized (i.e. batch-process all images).
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 16:30













13












13








13





$begingroup$

It is right, you can run only two Mathematica kernels at once in the Home Edition. But whether this is an actual limitation (and whether you should prefer a CPU with high single-core throughput) depends on what you are about to do with Mathematica.



I can only speak for my personal scope of application which is numerics. Here I seldomly find the Parallel-framework helpful, as Compiled code with options RuntimeAttributes -> Listable and Parallelization -> True usually scales much better than Parallel and friends. Such parallelized code is sped up by Intel MKL (and OpenMP?) outside of the Mathematica kernel. Even better is to use vectorized code for linear algebra; such is accelerated also by Intel MKL and such low level libraries as BLAS. The hardware ressources used are also independent of the number of Mathematica kernels.
So, for numerical computations, you may enjoy mostly all the benefits of a fat multi core CPU, even with the Home Edition.



Things might be different for vast symbolic computations, though, or when you are forced to run slow built-in functions that are not parallelized themselves and that you cannot reimplement yourselves more efficiently.



If you are interested in neural network facilities, you might prefer NVidia graphics cards over those by AMD since only CUDA, not OpenCL is supported. Anyways, most algorithms in Mathematica are not optimized for GPUs, so apart from the very localized application of neural networks, also the particular choice of GPU does not matter much.



In think the only general advice that one can give is: Having lots of memory is always a good idea and does not harm in any case. Apart from that, I doubt that it is a good idea to build your new machine depending on your Mathematica license.



Addendum



A propos Intel MKL: I really hate to say this (and it might cost me further downvotes), but as far as numerics in Mathematica are considered, one should keep in mind that Intel CPUs might be preferable over AMD CPUs just because Intel MKL is optimized for Intel hardware (and rumor has it that AMD processors are nerfed in MKL). I cannot quantify the difference in performance/price ratio, though; I just wanted to make you aware of that.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



It is right, you can run only two Mathematica kernels at once in the Home Edition. But whether this is an actual limitation (and whether you should prefer a CPU with high single-core throughput) depends on what you are about to do with Mathematica.



I can only speak for my personal scope of application which is numerics. Here I seldomly find the Parallel-framework helpful, as Compiled code with options RuntimeAttributes -> Listable and Parallelization -> True usually scales much better than Parallel and friends. Such parallelized code is sped up by Intel MKL (and OpenMP?) outside of the Mathematica kernel. Even better is to use vectorized code for linear algebra; such is accelerated also by Intel MKL and such low level libraries as BLAS. The hardware ressources used are also independent of the number of Mathematica kernels.
So, for numerical computations, you may enjoy mostly all the benefits of a fat multi core CPU, even with the Home Edition.



Things might be different for vast symbolic computations, though, or when you are forced to run slow built-in functions that are not parallelized themselves and that you cannot reimplement yourselves more efficiently.



If you are interested in neural network facilities, you might prefer NVidia graphics cards over those by AMD since only CUDA, not OpenCL is supported. Anyways, most algorithms in Mathematica are not optimized for GPUs, so apart from the very localized application of neural networks, also the particular choice of GPU does not matter much.



In think the only general advice that one can give is: Having lots of memory is always a good idea and does not harm in any case. Apart from that, I doubt that it is a good idea to build your new machine depending on your Mathematica license.



Addendum



A propos Intel MKL: I really hate to say this (and it might cost me further downvotes), but as far as numerics in Mathematica are considered, one should keep in mind that Intel CPUs might be preferable over AMD CPUs just because Intel MKL is optimized for Intel hardware (and rumor has it that AMD processors are nerfed in MKL). I cannot quantify the difference in performance/price ratio, though; I just wanted to make you aware of that.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 14 at 17:21

























answered Apr 14 at 14:04









Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher

63.2k587176




63.2k587176











  • $begingroup$
    Might you elaborate on what make Mma's Parallel frameowrk "almost useless" in your view?
    $endgroup$
    – Alan
    Apr 14 at 15:09










  • $begingroup$
    I do use the parallel tools a lot. I would not call them useless at all. It is true that parallelizing tight inner loops will often not provide much speedup (sometimes it will though), but parallelization is quite useful for running a slow function many times (e.g. batch processing).
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 15:15






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alan Okay, I admit, that was a bit opinionated. I rephrased the statement and also detailed out my argumentation.
    $endgroup$
    – Henrik Schumacher
    Apr 14 at 15:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "I have the tendency not to use slow functions". What I meant was that a loop (Table, Map) is worth parallelizing if each iteration takes a noticeable time. In these cases, it can provide a significant speedup. If each iteration takes 10^-6 seconds, then it won't. If you have a big enough problem, then it will always take a while to run. People run highly optimized C programs for days on HPC clusters :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 16:28






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    E.g. last time I needed to do some image processing. Just a PeronaMalikFilter will often take a noticeable amount of time. I had hundreds of images. Parallelization was a huge help. But only the outermost loop was parallelized (i.e. batch-process all images).
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 16:30
















  • $begingroup$
    Might you elaborate on what make Mma's Parallel frameowrk "almost useless" in your view?
    $endgroup$
    – Alan
    Apr 14 at 15:09










  • $begingroup$
    I do use the parallel tools a lot. I would not call them useless at all. It is true that parallelizing tight inner loops will often not provide much speedup (sometimes it will though), but parallelization is quite useful for running a slow function many times (e.g. batch processing).
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 15:15






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alan Okay, I admit, that was a bit opinionated. I rephrased the statement and also detailed out my argumentation.
    $endgroup$
    – Henrik Schumacher
    Apr 14 at 15:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "I have the tendency not to use slow functions". What I meant was that a loop (Table, Map) is worth parallelizing if each iteration takes a noticeable time. In these cases, it can provide a significant speedup. If each iteration takes 10^-6 seconds, then it won't. If you have a big enough problem, then it will always take a while to run. People run highly optimized C programs for days on HPC clusters :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 16:28






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    E.g. last time I needed to do some image processing. Just a PeronaMalikFilter will often take a noticeable amount of time. I had hundreds of images. Parallelization was a huge help. But only the outermost loop was parallelized (i.e. batch-process all images).
    $endgroup$
    – Szabolcs
    Apr 14 at 16:30















$begingroup$
Might you elaborate on what make Mma's Parallel frameowrk "almost useless" in your view?
$endgroup$
– Alan
Apr 14 at 15:09




$begingroup$
Might you elaborate on what make Mma's Parallel frameowrk "almost useless" in your view?
$endgroup$
– Alan
Apr 14 at 15:09












$begingroup$
I do use the parallel tools a lot. I would not call them useless at all. It is true that parallelizing tight inner loops will often not provide much speedup (sometimes it will though), but parallelization is quite useful for running a slow function many times (e.g. batch processing).
$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
Apr 14 at 15:15




$begingroup$
I do use the parallel tools a lot. I would not call them useless at all. It is true that parallelizing tight inner loops will often not provide much speedup (sometimes it will though), but parallelization is quite useful for running a slow function many times (e.g. batch processing).
$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
Apr 14 at 15:15




1




1




$begingroup$
@Alan Okay, I admit, that was a bit opinionated. I rephrased the statement and also detailed out my argumentation.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
Apr 14 at 15:46




$begingroup$
@Alan Okay, I admit, that was a bit opinionated. I rephrased the statement and also detailed out my argumentation.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
Apr 14 at 15:46




1




1




$begingroup$
"I have the tendency not to use slow functions". What I meant was that a loop (Table, Map) is worth parallelizing if each iteration takes a noticeable time. In these cases, it can provide a significant speedup. If each iteration takes 10^-6 seconds, then it won't. If you have a big enough problem, then it will always take a while to run. People run highly optimized C programs for days on HPC clusters :-)
$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
Apr 14 at 16:28




$begingroup$
"I have the tendency not to use slow functions". What I meant was that a loop (Table, Map) is worth parallelizing if each iteration takes a noticeable time. In these cases, it can provide a significant speedup. If each iteration takes 10^-6 seconds, then it won't. If you have a big enough problem, then it will always take a while to run. People run highly optimized C programs for days on HPC clusters :-)
$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
Apr 14 at 16:28




2




2




$begingroup$
E.g. last time I needed to do some image processing. Just a PeronaMalikFilter will often take a noticeable amount of time. I had hundreds of images. Parallelization was a huge help. But only the outermost loop was parallelized (i.e. batch-process all images).
$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
Apr 14 at 16:30




$begingroup$
E.g. last time I needed to do some image processing. Just a PeronaMalikFilter will often take a noticeable amount of time. I had hundreds of images. Parallelization was a huge help. But only the outermost loop was parallelized (i.e. batch-process all images).
$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
Apr 14 at 16:30

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f195184%2fwhat-computer-would-be-fastest-for-mathematica-home-edition%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?