• 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.

Calculating MHz

A

Amanda

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
108
If I'm using a dual core or HT CPU, and run 2 instances of F@H, do I double the MHz used for calculating for anything? Say I have a 4400+ X2 running at 2.3, do I say I'm running 4.6 or 2.3?

If I do count HT or DC, I'm folding using 41.823 GHz. :) I'm getting others to add to it, as well. I've got a few just humming away night and day, and a few that only run an hour or few a day (deadlineless, of course).

I'm hoping to save some lives here. I feel that this project will have some major impacts in future medical procedures, from cancer treatments to other minor diseases. I'd like to help with it as much as I can. And as it is fairly un-noticeable when running (after install), it is very painless and easy to do. I'm trying to recommend it to everyone I come across with.

Keep folding!
 
Welcome!

I can't say for sure, but I run an X2 4400 with 2 instances of folding at home. I'm not overclocking, so I count it as 4.4Ghz.

Fold on!

 
I believe you can add each core's clock speed for a total clock speed number, but as for HT I would say no since there is only one physical core. I'm not sure if you are gaining any performance from running two instances on the HT machine, but then again im a noobie too so maybe someone else can answer that question.

 
sobe said:
I believe you can add each core's clock speed for a total clock speed number, but as for HT I would say no since there is only one physical core. I'm not sure if you are gaining any performance from running two instances on the HT machine, but then again im a noobie too so maybe someone else can answer that question.

Click to expand...

While I think you do get 15-30?% improvement in output from running two instances on HT, from what I've read here, Stanford prefers that you only one run instance. They'd rather receive one workunit quickly than two workunits more slowly, I suppose. Someone will correct me if necessary.

EDIT - as for dual core, that is two physical cores, that is definitely doubled.



 
ElektronikSeraph said:
While I think you do get 15-30?% improvement in output from running two instances on HT, from what I've read here, Stanford prefers that you only one run instance. They'd rather receive one workunit quickly than two workunits more slowly, I suppose. Someone will correct me if necessary.

EDIT - as for dual core, that is two physical cores, that is definitely doubled.



Click to expand...

You are about right on. With dual core you are actually using 2 CPU's so you count them as two.

The gain with HT is more like 10 to 15% overall (from my own past experience) and really not worth the effort. You are correct re Stanfords position on HT.

If you have the choice I think you will find most long term folders prefer AMD for overall output.

Welcome aboard Amanda, glad to have you with us. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top