OK folks, it's been sometime since my last update. Many projects have been added and more results have been added to the projects I've previously collected data on. My P4 1.8 has died and beeen ressurected as the AMD X2 4800 you now see. All data is from standard Boinc clients. This time I've included the data from optimized applications to the charts/tables below. The individual xls files and charts are available for download/inspection upon request. There is one xls file for each project and one worksheet for each host.
I'll draw no conclusions here and simply present what I'm seeing, leaving it up to you to fish out what you may see. (I.E which are giving more/less than what the benchmark would indicate, and which are credit rich/richer)
This data is constantly changing and being updated. I wanted to wait till I was done, but quite frankly the more I do, the more I see needs to be done (like breaking project app versions down), and I'm beginning to think it'll never end.
SETI@home gives me 12.56 credits for 45000 s on my Pentium II running SuSE Linux 9.3. Eintein@home gives me 12.64 credits for 34000 s on the same box.So Einstein is 1.33 more favourable than SETI, if I am not wrong.
Tullio
but it depend of your CPU type and if you use an optimize application or not.
Einstein give by default optimized application for all users; SETI for example does't;
so on einstein you can't find faster applications than the default application (only specific optimized CPU app like the 4.27 for Apple G5)
on SETI you can and if i use the optimized app (by team MACNN) for my G5 SETI i credit more than einstein because the calculation of credit is based on the default app (7-8X slower) of SETI and not on the optimized app like einstein !
HashClash for example gives a good deal less. And I got more credits on Einstein than SETI even with my Intel comp. Not that I care overmuch, I was just interested in how much impact the different CPU architectures have.
I think, there are 3 kinds of users in Boinc :
1/ those mainly concerned by science.
2/ those more concerned by credit than by science.
3/ those equally concerned by credit AND science.
When I was "addicted" to Distributed Computing, I definitely fell into the 2nd category and it was pretty evident. But over the course of this past summer when I had to shut down machines to make the temperatures more tolerable, I gradually moved into the 3rd group. And now that I've been weaned from my DC addiction I find I can rest comfortably in the first group, which is really where I should have been all along in my humble opinion. ;)
Suffice to say, I'll continue to keep a couple machines on the E@H project for the forseeable future. :)
"Chance is irrelevant. We will succeed."
- Seven of Nine
For the curiosity of annika; I have a PowerMac G5 (1,8Ghz 1 chip,1 core) and if I compare the standards Applications between SETI and Einstein on my computer I have on average on two WU (So it's not very accurate)
- Einstein: 393,6 seconds of calculation per credits granted
- SETI: 462,3 seconds of calculation per credits granted
thus on the standards applications einstein gives more credits approximately 16% on PowerPC computers it's because standards SETI application for PowerPC is more badly optimized than x86 standards applications of SETI.
Now, comparison between optimized Applications :
- Einstein: 240 seconds of calculation per credits granted
- SETI: 191,5 seconds of calculation per credits granted
Thus here it is the reverse (approximately 22% more credits on SETI) since the profit brought by the optimized application of SETI is larger than that brought by optimized application of einstein; what is due to the fact that einstein standard application is already an optimized application for PowerPC.
PS: i use for SETI the Application of Team MAC NN v6 (you can find it on the messages board of SETI@home web site)
PS2 :Sorry for my English language, i Hope it is understandable !
Thanks, that's a somewhat new aspect (I never really had to do with Macs). Looks like the optimized SETI app really makes a huge difference- I wonder if this goes for Linux aswell? 'cause then I should consider getting an optimized app myself.
But I seem to remember that Macs are a bit on the losing side with Einstein's current science app (even more so than Intel PCs) while they are among the best machines you can have for SETI (all those G5s in top comps, wow). So maybe credit equality really depends very much on the system you use. I'm lucky as my AMD 64 (running Windows XP) should get a more than decent tailwind crunching Einstein, but of course that has nothing to do with equality. But I doubt it's really possible to make your project cooperate equally well with every kind of system it comes across. So again it's down to the users to determine how to assign their resources. Imho that has nothing to do with the admins being unjust or sth like that because it probably would be very equal between projects if everyone owned an AMD, an Intel and a Mac or sth like that *lol*.
Looking at mmciastro's Celeron's score really highlights the problem with einstien credit: The huge 2-2.5x gap between the SSE and non SSE app. The SETI gap is almost as large, but that project's calibrated it's credit for the SSE boxes instead of trying to split the difference. Akos's S4 apps had a much smaller gap (1.3-1.5x), so I know the nonSSE app has plenty of room for improvement.
On a tangent: [AF]CRISTOBOOL, could you post the what your G%'s benchmarks say it should be taking per credit. I'd be interested to see where they sit for reference purposes.
RE: Yeah, they did it
)
No, they did not. Please do your math.
credits / time · 3600
cu,
Michael
RE: RE: Yeah, they did it
)
Depends on what you received the last time as granted credit!
Last time i checked it was 122 credits and now we're down to 110.
Do your math, have fun with it.
OK folks, it's been sometime
)
OK folks, it's been sometime since my last update. Many projects have been added and more results have been added to the projects I've previously collected data on. My P4 1.8 has died and beeen ressurected as the AMD X2 4800 you now see. All data is from standard Boinc clients. This time I've included the data from optimized applications to the charts/tables below. The individual xls files and charts are available for download/inspection upon request. There is one xls file for each project and one worksheet for each host.
I'll draw no conclusions here and simply present what I'm seeing, leaving it up to you to fish out what you may see. (I.E which are giving more/less than what the benchmark would indicate, and which are credit rich/richer)
This data is constantly changing and being updated. I wanted to wait till I was done, but quite frankly the more I do, the more I see needs to be done (like breaking project app versions down), and I'm beginning to think it'll never end.
SETI@home gives me 12.56
)
SETI@home gives me 12.56 credits for 45000 s on my Pentium II running SuSE Linux 9.3. Eintein@home gives me 12.64 credits for 34000 s on the same box.So Einstein is 1.33 more favourable than SETI, if I am not wrong.
Tullio
Einstein don't credit less
)
Einstein don't credit less than other projects
but it depend of your CPU type and if you use an optimize application or not.
Einstein give by default optimized application for all users; SETI for example does't;
so on einstein you can't find faster applications than the default application (only specific optimized CPU app like the 4.27 for Apple G5)
on SETI you can and if i use the optimized app (by team MACNN) for my G5 SETI i credit more than einstein because the calculation of credit is based on the default app (7-8X slower) of SETI and not on the optimized app like einstein !
HashClash for example gives a
)
HashClash for example gives a good deal less. And I got more credits on Einstein than SETI even with my Intel comp. Not that I care overmuch, I was just interested in how much impact the different CPU architectures have.
As Black Hole pointed
)
As Black Hole pointed out:
I think, there are 3 kinds of users in Boinc :
1/ those mainly concerned by science.
2/ those more concerned by credit than by science.
3/ those equally concerned by credit AND science.
When I was "addicted" to Distributed Computing, I definitely fell into the 2nd category and it was pretty evident. But over the course of this past summer when I had to shut down machines to make the temperatures more tolerable, I gradually moved into the 3rd group. And now that I've been weaned from my DC addiction I find I can rest comfortably in the first group, which is really where I should have been all along in my humble opinion. ;)
Suffice to say, I'll continue to keep a couple machines on the E@H project for the forseeable future. :)
"Chance is irrelevant. We will succeed."
- Seven of Nine
For the curiosity of annika;
)
For the curiosity of annika; I have a PowerMac G5 (1,8Ghz 1 chip,1 core) and if I compare the standards Applications between SETI and Einstein on my computer I have on average on two WU (So it's not very accurate)
- Einstein: 393,6 seconds of calculation per credits granted
- SETI: 462,3 seconds of calculation per credits granted
thus on the standards applications einstein gives more credits approximately 16% on PowerPC computers it's because standards SETI application for PowerPC is more badly optimized than x86 standards applications of SETI.
Now, comparison between optimized Applications :
- Einstein: 240 seconds of calculation per credits granted
- SETI: 191,5 seconds of calculation per credits granted
Thus here it is the reverse (approximately 22% more credits on SETI) since the profit brought by the optimized application of SETI is larger than that brought by optimized application of einstein; what is due to the fact that einstein standard application is already an optimized application for PowerPC.
PS: i use for SETI the Application of Team MAC NN v6 (you can find it on the messages board of SETI@home web site)
PS2 :Sorry for my English language, i Hope it is understandable !
Thanks, that's a somewhat new
)
Thanks, that's a somewhat new aspect (I never really had to do with Macs). Looks like the optimized SETI app really makes a huge difference- I wonder if this goes for Linux aswell? 'cause then I should consider getting an optimized app myself.
But I seem to remember that Macs are a bit on the losing side with Einstein's current science app (even more so than Intel PCs) while they are among the best machines you can have for SETI (all those G5s in top comps, wow). So maybe credit equality really depends very much on the system you use. I'm lucky as my AMD 64 (running Windows XP) should get a more than decent tailwind crunching Einstein, but of course that has nothing to do with equality. But I doubt it's really possible to make your project cooperate equally well with every kind of system it comes across. So again it's down to the users to determine how to assign their resources. Imho that has nothing to do with the admins being unjust or sth like that because it probably would be very equal between projects if everyone owned an AMD, an Intel and a Mac or sth like that *lol*.
Looking at mmciastro's
)
Looking at mmciastro's Celeron's score really highlights the problem with einstien credit: The huge 2-2.5x gap between the SSE and non SSE app. The SETI gap is almost as large, but that project's calibrated it's credit for the SSE boxes instead of trying to split the difference. Akos's S4 apps had a much smaller gap (1.3-1.5x), so I know the nonSSE app has plenty of room for improvement.
On a tangent: [AF]CRISTOBOOL, could you post the what your G%'s benchmarks say it should be taking per credit. I'd be interested to see where they sit for reference purposes.