Brp7/MeerKat 1x vs 2x crunching speeds

My Geforce 3070 runs with 2x WUs exactly twice the time compared to only one WU. (Ubuntu)

So for me there is no advantage. Also the power consumption does not differentiate (170 vs. 172W). I run the GPU now at 110W fixed and it takes only 6-7% longer then the unlimited 170W setting.

I think this is the normal behaviour on geforce GPUs. AMD need often multiple WUs running parallel, nvidia not (maybe the 4090 is the exception here).

it likely varies with card used. like all things "it depends" so you wont get a result that holds true for all platforms/hardware, and that's subject to change if the apps change or the data files change.

AMD historically has benefited from multiples, while Nvidia has not (or not much). that probably still holds true here. something very powerful like the 4090 might see benefit if a single task cannot use the whole GPU effectively due to sheer size/power.

_________________________________________________________________________

I just don't get why you are so obsessive with higher RAC values when you won't leave your computers alone long enough to achieve the high RAC you aspire to.  You keep changing things all the time trying to achieve a higher RAC and then don't let them run long enough to do so.  In the process of changing things you are constantly inhibiting your computers from achieving your goals.

Will you ever learn that leaving a computer alone long enough, like a month or more, can actually have a benefit in RAC?

I tend to leave mine alone and apply a goal of achieving a high total credit score, but then will also look at the RAC values.

You must remember that RAC is a function of:

Computing the current value of Recent Average Credit

BOINC updates 'recent average credit' (RAC) only when new credit is granted. Interfaces that export RAC also export that time at which it was last updated. To obtain the current value of RAC, you must 'decay' it based on the time that has elapsed since it was updated:

function decay_average($avg, $avg_time, $now = 0) {
   $M_LN2 = 0.693147180559945309417;
   $credit_half_life = 86400 * 7;
   if ($now == 0) {
       $now = time();
   }
   $diff = $now - $avg_time;
   $weight = exp(-$diff * $M_LN2/$credit_half_life);
   $avg *= $weight;
   return $avg;
}

If you don't apply this decay, inactive entities will have incorrectly high RAC.

George

Proud member of the Old Farts Association

I don't think these are unreasonable statements.  After FGRPB1G ended, my RAC tanked and that means I have to make a change to my configuration.  But, being interested in RAC doesn't mean waiting a month after every change.  You have to calculate your personalized credit/s rate by looking at your validated tasks and doing a little math.  It doesn't much matter what is the algorithm for calculating RAC, you're not trying to trick it or beat the system.  Whatever it is, you have to wait for it to settle.  Fine.  So, in the short term, you can calculate your own version of RAC based on data in the validated tasks list.  It still takes a few days get get a reasonable sample of WUs validated, but you cannot test every combination of configurations anyway, so I don't actually see another way to do it or any point waiting for RAC to stabilize.  If you want more credit, just look at your credit.  You can figure it out. RAC changes just tells you whether or not you are doing the right thing...a month later.  But, that's not the only measurement you have; you can see the credit you're getting and how long it took to complete that work.  That's literally what counts.  It's not rocket sci...well, I guess technically it is astrophysics, but you get my meaning; your BONIC credit is not difficult to track.  And, that fine tuning you do after RAC settles is accomplished the exact same way, so, why not do that now and get a feel for the numbers, make some records.