• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Average frame time on 2653's w/ quad?

D

delvryboy

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
2,486
It seems I am crunching slower, however, nothing has changed.

My quad @ 3.2 is averaging 16:30 per frame w/ dual SMP & AC, which puts me at about 3150ppd on 2653's; I used to crunch 3065's at that rate....

My e8400 @ 3.6 is managing 10:15 per frame.



 
Here: Q6600 @ 3.4 2100's (11:30 Per Frame) PPD x 2 SMP = 4200 PPD per boxen w/AC

I can tell you that if you have a 3xxx work unit, it will slow your 2653 WU down.

Also computer usage comes into play if it is not a dedicated boxen.

 
I also have a Q6600@3.2 running dual SMP (Folding@Home Client Version 5.91beta6) with AC. This system is running Vista 64. One instance of 2653 is currently running at 13 min per frame and the other is 14 min per frame. Fahmon says this comes to 3729 ppd. My experience is that WinXP will always run faster than the equivalent Vista box. Are their any other processes that are running that are sucking down more CPU power that you might be expecting. What OS are you using?

0.png
 
My Q6600 running at 3ghz is running AC and 2 5.92 smp clients. Right now it's working on 2 2665 work units and it's averaging 18 and half to 19 minutes per frame on each instance showing a total of 2924 PPD for the box. Yesterday it was on 2 2653 work units and was hitting right at 15 minutes per frame on those 2.

 
Vista x86 and nothing running but the dual clients and AC. Both clients are crunching 2653's.



 
I don't know if this'll help in anyway, but I have a Q6600 OC'ed to 3.0 GHz WinXP w/SP3 running just one instance of F@H. According to the FAHmon 2.3.2b benchmark deal I have Avg = 9m 39s and Cur = 9m 39s. :)

I know I should be using 2x clients in VM, but ATM I'm not :rolleyes:

 
So, I was juggling some stuff this morning.(going to dump the e8400 and invest in another quad)

Well, I was running the quad @ stock..... no wonder why I had a big loss. ;)



 
delvryboy said:
So, I was juggling some stuff this morning.(going to dump the e8400 and invest in another quad)

Well, I was running the quad @ stock..... no wonder why I had a big loss. ;)



Click to expand...

LOL least you figured it out! Get it your OC back up! :)



 
I was going to say at 3.2Ghz you should be looking at 4200-4400 PPD

 
Sunin said:
I was going to say at 3.2Ghz you should be looking at 4200-4400 PPD

Click to expand...
Unfortunatly, I only get that type of production when I fold w/ nofreds. I am currently getting about 3900ppd, 3700-3800ppd when multitasking.

Good thing is, I dumped the C2D and will be building another quad for nofreds. In the end, my production will be up about 2kppd. :) .



 
This is just a FYI type post: I never did get the VM thing goin', but I did finally find out how to set "infinity" in Linux. (may help or may not help, with me it was just the princible of the thing :rolleyes:)

I'm currently runnin' 2x Q6600's, both mildly OC'ed to 3 gigs a hertz (whatever, sounds like a car rental place) On one of my Ubuntu v8.04 boxen, runnin 2x LinSMP clients (the 0,1 core, 2,3 core), it's crunchin' away on 2x 2353 WUs. According to FAHmon (I love this program) it's AVG'ing 11.55 mins on one and 12.40 mins on the other (kinda big spread :confused:). On the other Linux Affinited Q6600 I have 2x of those freakin' 2665's (I hate those biatches), it's runnin' 14.42 min on one and 15.29 min on the other (another kinda' big spead :rolleyes:).

I was also screwing around with the diskless/headless and everything else notfred CD program (man, that notfred dude is one smart motor scooter :p) and I got 2x E6600's up and crunchin'. They're both mildly OC'ed to the 3 GHz mark and, unfortunately, they're both strugglin' with that forked up WU, the 2665 :(
In the AVG column the one is doin' 13.45 mins and the other is doin' 12.34. (sheech, another big spread, oh well :confused:)

Now when all you GPU'ers get done laughing. I'm kind of slow on the uptake, but I'm seriously scouting the GPU deal (ATI or nVIDIA). I'm also wondering if there's gonna' be new and better drivers for the ATI cards (you know, use the cards abilities better, I'm kinda' partial to ATI)

FOLD ON!

 
jws2346 said:
I'm also wondering if there's gonna' be new and better drivers for the ATI cards (u know, use the cards abilities better, I'm kinda' partial to ATI)

Click to expand...

I would like to know this as well..... although I'm sure the answer is yes....as I am rather partial to ATI as well....really, I dig red....so, um.....yeah.

I do have to note, being partial to ATI has really bit me in the ass lately, and I'm starting to wonder what the hell is wrong with me, I mean brand loyalty is nothing short of stupidity;)

 
digital_exhaust said:
/snip
I do have to note, being partial to ATI has really bit me in the ass lately, and I'm starting to wonder what the hell is wrong with me, I mean brand loyalty is nothing short of stupidity;)

Click to expand...

Yeah, I can dig the brand loyalty thing being on the high side of stupid, but I just like the ATI name better (among other things of course) :D

/looks all around, checking for nVIDIA snipers :rolleyes:

FOLD ON!

 
jws2346 said:
Yeah, I can dig the brand loyalty thing being on the high side of stupid, but I just like the ATI name better (among other things of course) :D

/looks all around, checking for nVIDIA snipers :rolleyes:

FOLD ON!

Click to expand...

There were a few Graphic Card companies back then but ATI and nVidia ended up being the bigger players. At that point I tried both and for a very long time I got hung up being an ATI guy. I stayed that way right up through the 9800 then got talked into trying an nVidia card.

Companies had unending driver issues, they still do, plus I got tired of playing the card of the week game depending on what game was hot and both companies were caught with rigged benchmarks which upset everyone.

Now I use both brands. Again, my opinion, but ATI has some fantastic value going on for HTPC use. I have used a few of their 2400 and 2600 series that will run BR Disks just fine on my 50” plasma; in fact they do it much better then nVidia at a whole lot more money.

Now nVidia has an edge with the Folding project and of course their sales will climb as a result but face it the new ATI cards are getting great reviews now so we again have some interesting competition.

My point? Stanford would be foolish not to pursue ATI folding. The thorn in the finger? NVidia did most of the work for Stanford this time around so the really big question is will ATI take the time and effort to write new code, again?

It’s not like we can trust VJ to keep us up to date, he’s proven that.

Also don’t forget Intel has some damn decent GPUs out there right now that are exhibiting some good characteristics but they are all onboard I believe.

From there it’s a touch choice so pick something and be happy. If it folds well, that much better


 
BillR, to set the facts straight, NVIDIA reused the code ATI worked for 3 years, tweaked then bam, great folding card. However, ATI have a few cards up their sleeves so don't dismiss them too early. Also, in the case of GPU folding, it's not Stanford who code them but the manufacturers own developers (Stanford tell what need to be done then they do it).

Mike Houston work now for AMD/ATI (he is a former Pande Group however).
Scott LeGrand work for NVIDIA.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top