> Are the semprons so good or are the P4`s so bad ?
>
> now that I oc`d the 2200+ to 1800mhz, my time is 6:34 hrs per WU for einstein
> and 3.75 for S@H
Well, don't underestimate the P4 HT:
3.75h. for S@H means you are doing some 6.4WU's a day.
With my P4 HT , I'm doing real time some 10 to 11 WU's a day ;)
>
> > >
> >
> > I was always under the assumption that sempron's were worse than an
> Athlon XP.
> > But my Athlon XP 2400+ takes almost 12 hours for a WU.
> >
>
> Yes, Athlon XP's are normaly faster... and as i said i need 7 hours for a e@h
> WU with my 2200+... something doesnt seem to be alright with yours
>
Hmmm, well I have several 2400+ machines, and they are all around this speed. I wonder what it could be?
such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell
> I was always under the assumption that sempron's were worse than an Athlon XP.
> But my Athlon XP 2400+ takes almost 12 hours for a WU.
That's because you are running Linux. The Einstein client performs very badly in Linux. In SETI, there is little, if any, difference between Windows and Linux.
I'm running a XP3200, Asus A7N8X delux MB, 1.5 gig Corsair DDR 400 ram, nothing overclocked. My Einstein times are 5:50 to 6:00 hours, seti Boinc 2:30, Mfold 1.25 55 minutes average.
> > I was always under the assumption that sempron's were worse than an
> Athlon XP.
> > But my Athlon XP 2400+ takes almost 12 hours for a WU.
>
> That's because you are running Linux. The Einstein client performs very badly
> in Linux. In SETI, there is little, if any, difference between Windows and
> Linux.
Why is this? You would think in Linux they could make it even better than for Windows.
such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell
after several crashes I have settled for 1710Mhz with a 190 FSB and a Vcore of 1.67 Volts..
I cranked it up to 1900 Mhz for a few minutes at 210fsb.. it crashed.. at 60C it shut down
I stand corrected for the Einstein WU time.. it takes me 7hrs36mins to complete.. But that`s at 1710mhz, once my watercooler is hooked up, I can run stable at 1850mhz or so, that would amount to aprox. 30mins speedup..
Basicly, all indications are that AMD beats the Intel P4 at any test..
> Why is this? You would think in Linux they could make it even better than for
> Windows.
Compiling for Linux is a lot more complicated than compiling for Windows because of the far more diverse range of platforms the compiler can target for. They simply haven't found the "right" compiler optimisations yet. Actually, it's even more complicated than that because the libraries linked (either dynamically or statically) need to be optimised too to have any real effect.
It's a shame the source code has not been released - otherwise some of the people out here with more time to spare may have cracked it by now. ;)
> Compiling for Linux is a lot more complicated than compiling for Windows
> because of the far more diverse range of platforms the compiler can target
> for. They simply haven't found the "right" compiler optimisations yet.
> Actually, it's even more complicated than that because the libraries linked
> (either dynamically or statically) need to be optimised too to have any real
> effect.
This still seems odd though. Because if the code is well-written, it should perform roughly the same as it does on windows, since both programs are basically spending most of their time doing Floating Point calculations, which is a CPU problem not a compiler problem.
I do agree they should release the source code. I think their arguments for not releasing it are kind of weak, so what if someone optimizes their client to get more points? Big deal, we are here to find gravity waves, not be the person with the most points!
such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell
> Are the semprons so good or
)
> Are the semprons so good or are the P4`s so bad ?
>
> now that I oc`d the 2200+ to 1800mhz, my time is 6:34 hrs per WU for einstein
> and 3.75 for S@H
Well, don't underestimate the P4 HT:
3.75h. for S@H means you are doing some 6.4WU's a day.
With my P4 HT , I'm doing real time some 10 to 11 WU's a day ;)
Greetings from Belgium
Thierry
> > > > I was always under
)
> >
>
> I was always under the assumption that sempron's were worse than an Athlon XP.
> But my Athlon XP 2400+ takes almost 12 hours for a WU.
>
Yes, Athlon XP's are normaly faster... and as i said i need 7 hours for a e@h WU with my 2200+... something doesnt seem to be alright with yours
> > > > > > > > I was
)
>
> > >
> >
> > I was always under the assumption that sempron's were worse than an
> Athlon XP.
> > But my Athlon XP 2400+ takes almost 12 hours for a WU.
> >
>
> Yes, Athlon XP's are normaly faster... and as i said i need 7 hours for a e@h
> WU with my 2200+... something doesnt seem to be alright with yours
>
Hmmm, well I have several 2400+ machines, and they are all around this speed. I wonder what it could be?
such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell
> I was always under the
)
> I was always under the assumption that sempron's were worse than an Athlon XP.
> But my Athlon XP 2400+ takes almost 12 hours for a WU.
That's because you are running Linux. The Einstein client performs very badly in Linux. In SETI, there is little, if any, difference between Windows and Linux.
Be lucky,
Neil
I'm running a XP3200, Asus
)
I'm running a XP3200, Asus A7N8X delux MB, 1.5 gig Corsair DDR 400 ram, nothing overclocked. My Einstein times are 5:50 to 6:00 hours, seti Boinc 2:30, Mfold 1.25 55 minutes average.
AMD64 3200+ with Win ME:
)
AMD64 3200+ with Win ME: SETI 2.5 to 3 hrs, Einstein 4 to 5 hrs, Predictor 40 to 50 mins. LHC 4 seconds to 2 hrs.
> > I was always under the
)
> > I was always under the assumption that sempron's were worse than an
> Athlon XP.
> > But my Athlon XP 2400+ takes almost 12 hours for a WU.
>
> That's because you are running Linux. The Einstein client performs very badly
> in Linux. In SETI, there is little, if any, difference between Windows and
> Linux.
Why is this? You would think in Linux they could make it even better than for Windows.
such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell
okay... after several
)
okay...
after several crashes I have settled for 1710Mhz with a 190 FSB and a Vcore of 1.67 Volts..
I cranked it up to 1900 Mhz for a few minutes at 210fsb.. it crashed.. at 60C it shut down
I stand corrected for the Einstein WU time.. it takes me 7hrs36mins to complete.. But that`s at 1710mhz, once my watercooler is hooked up, I can run stable at 1850mhz or so, that would amount to aprox. 30mins speedup..
Basicly, all indications are that AMD beats the Intel P4 at any test..
I`ll never buy intel again..
> Why is this? You would
)
> Why is this? You would think in Linux they could make it even better than for
> Windows.
Compiling for Linux is a lot more complicated than compiling for Windows because of the far more diverse range of platforms the compiler can target for. They simply haven't found the "right" compiler optimisations yet. Actually, it's even more complicated than that because the libraries linked (either dynamically or statically) need to be optimised too to have any real effect.
It's a shame the source code has not been released - otherwise some of the people out here with more time to spare may have cracked it by now. ;)
Be lucky,
Neil
> Compiling for Linux is a
)
> Compiling for Linux is a lot more complicated than compiling for Windows
> because of the far more diverse range of platforms the compiler can target
> for. They simply haven't found the "right" compiler optimisations yet.
> Actually, it's even more complicated than that because the libraries linked
> (either dynamically or statically) need to be optimised too to have any real
> effect.
This still seems odd though. Because if the code is well-written, it should perform roughly the same as it does on windows, since both programs are basically spending most of their time doing Floating Point calculations, which is a CPU problem not a compiler problem.
I do agree they should release the source code. I think their arguments for not releasing it are kind of weak, so what if someone optimizes their client to get more points? Big deal, we are here to find gravity waves, not be the person with the most points!
such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell