Yes, welcome to Einstein :-) and have fun with your credits, whatever you use them for ;-) but if you find a way to get nice hardware in exchange for them, let me know...
My 2 cents worth: Don't try to compare credits from one project to another. 100 credits at Einstein is not equivalent to 100 credits at Rosetta (for example). The amount of cpu effort you contribute to get 100 einstein credits is not the same as the amount of cpu effort you will contribute to get 100 Rosetta credits (or other projects).
Using my own stats, for me to achieve a Recent Average Credit (RAC) that is identical at Einstein and Rosetta (say, 185 and 185) I have to set my resource shares at 66% for Rosetta and 34% Einstein. So, I dedicate the same amount of cpu time to get 1.6 credits at Einstein as I do to get 1 credit at Rosetta.
If I run my resource shares at 50/50 -- a combination that you might expect to give equal credits at each project -- I in fact get a RAC of 240 at Einstein and only 150 at Rosetta. These differences are due to the amount of credits given at each project and the efficiency of your machine doing work the projects have to offer.
So if you want to brag that you have more credits than someone else, make sure that you compare your credit at a given project to other individuals contributing to the same project. If I ran Einstein only I would have far more total credits than if I ran Rosetta only.
My 2 cents worth: Don't try to compare credits from one project to another. 100 credits at Einstein is not equivalent to 100 credits at Rosetta (for example). The amount of cpu effort you contribute to get 100 einstein credits is not the same as the amount of cpu effort you will contribute to get 100 Rosetta credits (or other projects).
True enough, but it’s also worth noting that there is some effort being made to make different projects as similar as possible in terms of credit earned per unit CPU time. I’ve been running both SETI@home and E@h with equal shares on my partner’s iMac (2.16-GHz C2D) for about a month now, and its RAC scores on the two projects differ by only about 5%. (I expect that to change in short order, though: I’ll be installing an optimized S@h app on it this weekend, which should at least double its production for that project.)
OTOH my Mac G5 is producing about the same for E@h (using the PPC v4.27 app) and S@h Beta, but the latter’s resource share on this host is twice as high, implying that with equal shares S@h Beta would be only half as productive of credit as Einstein.
Strange, I used to think SETI runs especially well on Intel Macs (or Intels with a large cache in general) so I would have expected the box to be more productive over there... or has Einstein changed to an Intel project? ;-)
We are new here
)
Generically credits are for measuring your progress, and like any measurement may be suborned to other uses like: bragging etc. :-)
No one I'm aware has yet been able to link them to the general economy though, and exchange them for a hamburger say, but we live in hope ..... :-)
Thanks for coming on board either way!
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
bragging rights :)
)
bragging rights :)
Well, I think the last 2
)
Well, I think the last 2 posts, covered the credits information.. So, I will just say WELCOME to E@H!
d3xt3r.net
Yes, welcome to Einstein :-)
)
Yes, welcome to Einstein :-) and have fun with your credits, whatever you use them for ;-) but if you find a way to get nice hardware in exchange for them, let me know...
RE: bragging rights
)
My 2 cents worth: Don't try to compare credits from one project to another. 100 credits at Einstein is not equivalent to 100 credits at Rosetta (for example). The amount of cpu effort you contribute to get 100 einstein credits is not the same as the amount of cpu effort you will contribute to get 100 Rosetta credits (or other projects).
Using my own stats, for me to achieve a Recent Average Credit (RAC) that is identical at Einstein and Rosetta (say, 185 and 185) I have to set my resource shares at 66% for Rosetta and 34% Einstein. So, I dedicate the same amount of cpu time to get 1.6 credits at Einstein as I do to get 1 credit at Rosetta.
If I run my resource shares at 50/50 -- a combination that you might expect to give equal credits at each project -- I in fact get a RAC of 240 at Einstein and only 150 at Rosetta. These differences are due to the amount of credits given at each project and the efficiency of your machine doing work the projects have to offer.
So if you want to brag that you have more credits than someone else, make sure that you compare your credit at a given project to other individuals contributing to the same project. If I ran Einstein only I would have far more total credits than if I ran Rosetta only.
RE: My 2 cents worth: Don't
)
True enough, but it’s also worth noting that there is some effort being made to make different projects as similar as possible in terms of credit earned per unit CPU time. I’ve been running both SETI@home and E@h with equal shares on my partner’s iMac (2.16-GHz C2D) for about a month now, and its RAC scores on the two projects differ by only about 5%. (I expect that to change in short order, though: I’ll be installing an optimized S@h app on it this weekend, which should at least double its production for that project.)
OTOH my Mac G5 is producing about the same for E@h (using the PPC v4.27 app) and S@h Beta, but the latter’s resource share on this host is twice as high, implying that with equal shares S@h Beta would be only half as productive of credit as Einstein.
Strange, I used to think SETI
)
Strange, I used to think SETI runs especially well on Intel Macs (or Intels with a large cache in general) so I would have expected the box to be more productive over there... or has Einstein changed to an Intel project? ;-)