Fig. 9

A. RMSD between optimised conformers at the HF\(^{Q}\) vs. level. Ranges from [0. \(\rightarrow\) 0.0010] Å. B. Energy difference between the PESs generated at the HF\(^{Q}\) vs. level. Ranges from [-0.02 \(\rightarrow\) 0.02] \(\frac{kcal}{mol}\) C. RAM consumption required to produce a set of optimised structures at the HF\(^{Q}\) vs. level. Whilst both top at around the same order of magnitude, it is baffling how well the RIJK optimisation approximates the Coulombic and Exchange Integrals by speeding up the wallclock time up to 800% ! D. Disk Space required to produce a set of optimised structures at the HF\(^{Q}\) vs. level. The explanation is analogous to the previous point made. E. RMSD between optimised conformers at the MP2\(^{Q}\) vs. MP2\(^{T}\) level. Ranges from [0. \(\rightarrow\) 0.0010] Å. F. Energy difference between the PESs generated at the MP2\(^{Q}\) vs. MP2\(^{T}\) level. Ranges from [-0.02 \(\rightarrow\) 0.02] \(\frac{kcal}{mol}\) G. RAM consumption required to produce a set of optimised structures at the MP2\(^{Q}\) vs. MP2\(^{T}\) level. There is both little overall difference in the time spent calculating (± 550h vs. ± 500h) and the RAM required to run the calculation. H. Disk Space required to produce a set of optimised structures at the MP2\(^{Q}\) vs. MP2\(^{T}\) level. Though there is a noticeable difference in stored tmp-files space, it does not feel like this can be a reason for opting for the TZVP basis set