Console vs. Graphical Client

[Carnival Forces]

is there that much of a difference in efficiency/speed between the Console client of F@H and the Graphical Client of F@H? i was reading the FAQ, and it said if you have a video card, then the load of the graphics on the Screensaver version is almost nothing (since the vid. card is doing it), does this cross-apply to the Graphical client?

thanks

question number 2:
can i run an unlimited number of machines off one username?

thanks

 

[Dark Ember]

Im not entirely sure about your first question. I know it used to make a difference a long time ago, but I'm not entirely positive with more modern computers.

To answer your second question though, yes, you can run as many machines as you want on your username. Many people have folding farms with many computers chomping away 24/7 under their 1 username.

 

[Carnival Forces]

Im not entirely sure about your first question. I know it used to make a difference a long time ago, but I'm not entirely positive with more modern computers.

To answer your second question though, yes, you can run as many machines as you want on your username. Many people have folding farms with many computers chomping away 24/7 under their 1 username.

cool, thanks

wait, so what are the "Machine ID's" for now? And i notice there used to be a limit of 4, but now you can have 8 or something...

 

[Tigerbiten]

Each box has a User id.
Then each client has a machine id.
They get added togther so that Stanford can keep track of which protien it sent where.
So if you run more than one client on any one box then you need to set each with a different machine id.

Also if you clone you clients between boxen make sure you run the config at the start so that you generate a different user id.
Otherwise Stanford may not record the sent out work units.
So you will not get credited for your work sent in.

Luck.......

 

[Little_Kenny]

is there that much of a difference in efficiency/speed between the Console client of F@H and the Graphical Client of F@H? i was reading the FAQ, and it said if you have a video card, then the load of the graphics on the Screensaver version is almost nothing (since the vid. card is doing it), does this cross-apply to the Graphical client?

thanks

question number 2:
can i run an unlimited number of machines off one username?

thanks

For question number 1, I believe by nature the graphical client is a screesaver. So it will only run once the screensaver kicks in. So as long as the screensaver is not actively running you won't be doing any work. I may be way wrong on this, someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.

The console on the other hand is always running. Now it won't use processor time if you are doing other stuff, but if you are doing other stuff that is not using the processor 100% then Folding can use what's left over immediately, without having to wait for a screensaver to kick in.

TB is exactly right as far as the Machine ID is concerned. If you are only running one instance of FAH on your computer you will never have to even worry about it. This only comes into play when you have two or more instances of FAH running on the same computer.

Fold On!

 

[Mattman]

Actually, the graphical client is just a pretty version of the console client. The screensaver version is it's own animal and does behave the way L_K says it does - no work unless the screensaver is active. The console version should be a little bit faster due to the fact that it's not doing any of the graphical stuff, but in reality you'll probably never notice it. I never notice it, but that should be expected given that I only use the console version.

 

[Carnival Forces]

Actually, the graphical client is just a pretty version of the console client. The screensaver version is it's own animal and does behave the way L_K says it does - no work unless the screensaver is active. The console version should be a little bit faster due to the fact that it's not doing any of the graphical stuff, but in reality you'll probably never notice it. I never notice it, but that should be expected given that I only use the console version.

but wouldn't the graphical stuff be handled by my Video Card, therefore not having any impact on performance ?

 

[Little_Kenny]

Thanks for setting me straight Mattman. I automatically equated graphical to screen saver. I've never run anything, but the console version so I didn't realize the graphical and screensaver were actually separate downloads until I just now checked. Heh.

Yes your graphics card will do most of the work, but there is still overhead I think like interfacing between graphic card and cpu type stuff. But as Mattaman said you probably wouldn't see the difference anyway.

Fold On!

 

[pageian]

There used to be a performance hit but I don't think it's especially relevant now. The seti client would slow way down if you used the screensave version, I don't think FAH ever suffered that bad though.

 

[hiddenmage]

Ok, don't laugh at me, but I've got 2 identical computers folding on the same protein (different run/clone/gen) right now. The only difference in the computers is one is running the console version and one is running the graphical version.

Here's the reason I don't want you to laugh. The computers are 166 MHz with 32 MB ram

Their not powerhouses, but they were free and they fold

Anyway here's what I found :

Graphical -- p1104_Keifhaber_5 (Run 7, Clone 10, Gen 12) takes 1:22:48 per frame
Console -- p1104_Keifhaber_5 (Run 12, Clone 34, Gen 15) takes 1:21:40 per frame

That's only a difference of 68 seconds per frame, but remember, these computers are SLOW

I'm going to experiment with my 2.7 GHZ Celeron to check and see if there is a bigger difference for a faster computer. I'll post the results here when I get them.

 

[pageian]

Make sure you check the deadline time to see if those boxes will finish in time. The deadlines are pretty generous but were benchmarked on faster machines than those. You can check deadlines here.

I'd be interested to see what the difference is on a faster box, post some times when you get them.

 

[Tigerbiten]

From Stanford.

The screen saver is designed to use very little CPU time. Even without any OpenGL hardware, the screen saver only uses about 5% of the CPU time for graphics.
If you have some sort of OpenGL support on your graphics card, the CPU time becomes virtually zero.

Hiddenmage's p1104 slow down 1% with the screen saver.
p1104 is a timeless Tinker so no need to check deadlines.

Luck.........

 

[Carnival Forces]

From Stanford.

The screen saver is designed to use very little CPU time. Even without any OpenGL hardware, the screen saver only uses about 5% of the CPU time for graphics.
If you have some sort of OpenGL support on your graphics card, the CPU time becomes virtually zero.

Hiddenmage's p1104 slow down 1% with the screen saver.
p1104 is a timeless Tinker so no need to check deadlines.

Luck.........

not Screensaver, Graphical

there's a difference

 

[Buckus]

From Stanford.

The screen saver is designed to use very little CPU time. Even without any OpenGL hardware, the screen saver only uses about 5% of the CPU time for graphics.
If you have some sort of OpenGL support on your graphics card, the CPU time becomes virtually zero.

Hiddenmage's p1104 slow down 1% with the screen saver.
p1104 is a timeless Tinker so no need to check deadlines.

Luck.........

Even 1% taken away from the CPU for something else is 1% less time spent folding!