Still got some problems to get my ATI gfx card and Ubuntu Feisty Fawn acquainted, and worry about the IPSec network at uni, but maybe I should see it as a challenge ;-)
I like that attitude :-)
Oh, BTW, we are in a completely wrong thread here, this one used to be about the S5R1 run! Maybe this thread should be un-sticky-fied .
My Core Duo (shouldn't be much of a difference since each WU gets processed by only one core anyway) takes a little less than 50 hours for the big 500+ credit WUs. Very similar clockspeed, too, so that would be a realistic finishing time. I think Cores suffer rather much from lack of optimization with the current app, but not THAT much.
Annika,
Those times look awfully long, my C2D 6600 @2.16GHz, is doing 445 cr unit in about 18 hrs. WinXP pro.
My Core Duo (shouldn't be much of a difference since each WU gets processed by only one core anyway) takes a little less than 50 hours for the big 500+ credit WUs. Very similar clockspeed, too, so that would be a realistic finishing time. I think Cores suffer rather much from lack of optimization with the current app, but not THAT much.
Annika,
Those times look awfully long, my C2D 6600 @2.16GHz, is doing 445 cr unit in about 18 hrs. WinXP pro.
Yep, and mine is a 1.6 GHz, not 2.something. Like the little machine, though... it's more than okay for a notebook, especially as I needed some other features aswell. Besides, we in Germany always seem to be lagging behind the US concerning CPU availability and prices...
But I'm trying out Linux now, maybe that'll really give me a few percent extra. Got my graphics problem solved with the help of Envy so my widescreen display won't give me eye cancer, and then I got the box crunching. Unfortunately it looks like at least one of the cores got a small WU, so it will be a bit difficult to compare between the two OSs.
Yep, and mine is a 1.6 GHz, not 2.something. Like the little machine, though... it's more than okay for a notebook, especially as I needed some other features aswell. Besides, we in Germany always seem to be lagging behind the US concerning CPU availability and prices...
But I'm trying out Linux now, maybe that'll really give me a few percent extra. Got my graphics problem solved with the help of Envy so my widescreen display won't give me eye cancer, and then I got the box crunching. Unfortunately it looks like at least one of the cores got a small WU, so it will be a bit difficult to compare between the two OSs.
Go Linux, Go!! :-)
Yup one of the WU is a short one, but the other one is a 282 Hz frequency WU and that one is a "biggy".
Yep, and mine is a 1.6 GHz, not 2.something. Like the little machine, though... it's more than okay for a notebook, especially as I needed some other features aswell. Besides, we in Germany always seem to be lagging behind the US concerning CPU availability and prices...
But I'm trying out Linux now, maybe that'll really give me a few percent extra. Got my graphics problem solved with the help of Envy so my widescreen display won't give me eye cancer, and then I got the box crunching. Unfortunately it looks like at least one of the cores got a small WU, so it will be a bit difficult to compare between the two OSs.
Go Linux, Go!! :-)
Yup one of the WU is a short one, but the other one is a 282 Hz frequency WU and that one is a "biggy".
CU
BRM
In that case: Wow! If that WU really is a 5xx credit one I'm nothing short of amazed, because it's already 1/4 finished after 8 hours, which would amount to 32 hours of finishing time. More than a third faster, do you really think that's realistic? Or is it maybe a WU for 4xx credits? I certainly hope it's a real big one, but I find that hard to believe atm...
Yep, and mine is a 1.6 GHz, not 2.something. Like the little machine, though... it's more than okay for a notebook, especially as I needed some other features aswell. Besides, we in Germany always seem to be lagging behind the US concerning CPU availability and prices...
But I'm trying out Linux now, maybe that'll really give me a few percent extra. Got my graphics problem solved with the help of Envy so my widescreen display won't give me eye cancer, and then I got the box crunching. Unfortunately it looks like at least one of the cores got a small WU, so it will be a bit difficult to compare between the two OSs.
Go Linux, Go!! :-)
Yup one of the WU is a short one, but the other one is a 282 Hz frequency WU and that one is a "biggy".
CU
BRM
In that case: Wow! If that WU really is a 5xx credit one I'm nothing short of amazed, because it's already 1/4 finished after 8 hours, which would amount to 32 hours of finishing time. More than a third faster, do you really think that's realistic? Or is it maybe a WU for 4xx credits? I certainly hope it's a real big one, but I find that hard to believe atm...
Hi!
I checked again and 282 Hz is close to a discontinuity in the freq->processing time chart that Bernd posted. Yes, it might be a 4xx credits one :-(. But even then the figures would indicate that you're a bit faster under Linux than under Win.
Yup one of the WU is a short one, but the other one is a 282 Hz frequency WU and that one is a "biggy".
CU
BRM
In that case: Wow! If that WU really is a 5xx credit one I'm nothing short of amazed, because it's already 1/4 finished after 8 hours, which would amount to 32 hours of finishing time. More than a third faster, do you really think that's realistic? Or is it maybe a WU for 4xx credits? I certainly hope it's a real big one, but I find that hard to believe atm...
The 282 frequency is not really a "biggy" as it will return you only 443 credits when validated :).
In its windows incarnation, your machine was doing real biggies - 524.4 credits and was producing around 10.5 - 10.7 credits/hour.
In its Linux incarnation, if a 282 frequency result really does complete in 32 hours as you estimate, it will be around 30% more efficient, producing 13.8 credits/hour. I hope this is real and not simply due to some misconfiguration or correctable inefficiency of your windows setup :).
My interest in this is that I've just started looking seriously at converting a large number of windows boxes to linux. This was initially prompted by the fact that my fastest machines are all AMD (mainly Athlon XP 2000+, 2400+, 2500+, all running effectively at 3200+ speeds through overclocking) and they have suffered considerably with the apparent inefficiency of the new app on the AMD/Win platform. It would suit me just fine if Linux is a clear winner on both Intel and AMD hardware but I suspect it's probably mainly AMD and will eventually get rectified.
As an experiment, I've very recently acquired a number of identical old compaqs that have dual PIII Xeon processors, 256MB RDRAM and 18GB SCSI HDs. I've installed WinXP on some and started installing linux on others so I can get a direct comparison. Under Win (and compared over a number of results on several boxes) they are generating pretty close to 4.2 cr/hr per CPU with not much variation. The first linux results will soon be in so I can't yet give a precise answer but it's looking very interesting. With both initial results 50% completed, I've doubled the time to get an estimate which, if correct, has this linux incarnation set to produce around 5.8 cr/hr per CPU. Now 4.2 to 5.8 is quite a handy increase in efficiency :). It's quite comparable to the difference you are seeing with your machine.
RE: Still got some
)
I like that attitude :-)
Oh, BTW, we are in a completely wrong thread here, this one used to be about the S5R1 run! Maybe this thread should be un-sticky-fied .
CU
BRM
RE: My Core Duo (shouldn't
)
Annika,
Those times look awfully long, my C2D 6600 @2.16GHz, is doing 445 cr unit in about 18 hrs. WinXP pro.
Andy
RE: RE: My Core Duo
)
Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo :)
Yep, and mine is a 1.6 GHz,
)
Yep, and mine is a 1.6 GHz, not 2.something. Like the little machine, though... it's more than okay for a notebook, especially as I needed some other features aswell. Besides, we in Germany always seem to be lagging behind the US concerning CPU availability and prices...
But I'm trying out Linux now, maybe that'll really give me a few percent extra. Got my graphics problem solved with the help of Envy so my widescreen display won't give me eye cancer, and then I got the box crunching. Unfortunately it looks like at least one of the cores got a small WU, so it will be a bit difficult to compare between the two OSs.
RE: Yep, and mine is a 1.6
)
Go Linux, Go!! :-)
Yup one of the WU is a short one, but the other one is a 282 Hz frequency WU and that one is a "biggy".
CU
BRM
RE: RE: Yep, and mine is
)
In that case: Wow! If that WU really is a 5xx credit one I'm nothing short of amazed, because it's already 1/4 finished after 8 hours, which would amount to 32 hours of finishing time. More than a third faster, do you really think that's realistic? Or is it maybe a WU for 4xx credits? I certainly hope it's a real big one, but I find that hard to believe atm...
RE: RE: RE: Yep, and
)
Hi!
I checked again and 282 Hz is close to a discontinuity in the freq->processing time chart that Bernd posted. Yes, it might be a 4xx credits one :-(. But even then the figures would indicate that you're a bit faster under Linux than under Win.
We'll see :-)
CU
BRM
RE: Besides, we in Germany
)
For some reason, I thought you were another Oz person... :/
RE: RE: Besides, we in
)
A wizard, but not from Oz :-)
CU
BRM
RE: RE: Yup one of the
)
The 282 frequency is not really a "biggy" as it will return you only 443 credits when validated :).
In its windows incarnation, your machine was doing real biggies - 524.4 credits and was producing around 10.5 - 10.7 credits/hour.
In its Linux incarnation, if a 282 frequency result really does complete in 32 hours as you estimate, it will be around 30% more efficient, producing 13.8 credits/hour. I hope this is real and not simply due to some misconfiguration or correctable inefficiency of your windows setup :).
My interest in this is that I've just started looking seriously at converting a large number of windows boxes to linux. This was initially prompted by the fact that my fastest machines are all AMD (mainly Athlon XP 2000+, 2400+, 2500+, all running effectively at 3200+ speeds through overclocking) and they have suffered considerably with the apparent inefficiency of the new app on the AMD/Win platform. It would suit me just fine if Linux is a clear winner on both Intel and AMD hardware but I suspect it's probably mainly AMD and will eventually get rectified.
As an experiment, I've very recently acquired a number of identical old compaqs that have dual PIII Xeon processors, 256MB RDRAM and 18GB SCSI HDs. I've installed WinXP on some and started installing linux on others so I can get a direct comparison. Under Win (and compared over a number of results on several boxes) they are generating pretty close to 4.2 cr/hr per CPU with not much variation. The first linux results will soon be in so I can't yet give a precise answer but it's looking very interesting. With both initial results 50% completed, I've doubled the time to get an estimate which, if correct, has this linux incarnation set to produce around 5.8 cr/hr per CPU. Now 4.2 to 5.8 is quite a handy increase in efficiency :). It's quite comparable to the difference you are seeing with your machine.
Cheers,
Gary.