• 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.

GPU decision

K

Kendrak

[H]ard|DCer of the Year 2009
Joined
Aug 29, 2001
Messages
21,141
The time has come, true net gen cards are out and prices are good

9800GTX or 4850

They are close in price and I'd rather go with the ATI, but the folding performance right now is better in the 9800GTX

The third option is wait a couple weeks and see if we get a better ATI client...

What do you all think?! :confused:

 
9800GTX isn't really true next gen and has been out for a while. It's basically just an OCed 8800GTS G92.

Since the 4850 actually is next gen, I'd probably wait a bit and see if the ATI client is optimized for the 48XX cards in the near future.
 
Yep Im waiting it out for a few more weeks before I decide. I to would rather go with an ATI but we shall see how there client progresses.
 
Right now it's a waiting game. Sure, the nVidia cards are putting out much higher numbers for the moment, but we don't know when the numbers will get better for ATI. Also, it's still early beta as far as work units go for the GPU clients and from what many people have said, the ATI clients aren't getting near their full potential.

Unless you were planning on buying a new video card for something else, your best bet is to wait. This has two advantages. The ATI client may get an update which will show much more of its power and two, the prices on both are likely to drop especially if nVidia decides they need to lower the price on their cards to compete with the current ATI offerings. I think nVidia will drop prices soon as they are getting trounced in the price/performance ratio right now.

I will not buy a card just for folding and if I was buying a card right now it would probably be at the 4850 MSRP or the 4870 with a good deal. That has one caveat for me, though. I need better ATI Linux drivers. The ATI card would go in my main machine for gaming purposes and the 8800GT would be put in one of my other systems for folding purposes. For me it would be a win/win scenario as the ATI card will eventually do a better job in folding and I don't think anyone will disagree on that point.

If you're looking for folding performance right now, the 8800GT would probably be my choice. It's cheap and the higher end cards don't really put out much more in the way of points, especially after the shader clock is raised on the 8800GT. However, you may end up kicking yourself in the ass later if the 4000 series ATI cards end up kicking the asses of the nVidia cards or even have the same performance for folding considering how much cheaper they are for the most part.

As I said, I personally think the ATI cards are currently getting the shaft in folding and it's only a matter of time before this is changed.

One more thing to keep in mind is the point restructuring we know will happen. It's almost ludicrous the points the nVidia cards are getting right now. I'm betting we'll see a drop in the point allocation before too long.

 
I would go with the 4850.

From the comments from the folding forums ...

it will not be long until they get the scaling correct on the new cards ...

The Costs + Power draw also favors the 4850

 
I thought the different designs of the shader units is what made the difference (other than drivers) in their folding ability. The shader units in the Nvidia cards, though fewer in number, are better able to be leveraged for non-graphics work.

Note: Not an expert, just remembering something I read in another thread.

 
I'd wait and see how well the ATI client gets updated, but if this is for your main rig I'm not sure either would be a huge upgrade over the 8800 GTS in your sig. 4870 would be my pick, but it's a little more pricey so that probably doesn't help you much.

 
drgnfang said:
I thought the different designs of the shader units is what made the difference (other than drivers) in their folding ability. The shader units in the Nvidia cards, though fewer in number, are better able to be leveraged for non-graphics work.

Note: Not an expert, just remembering something I read in another thread.

Click to expand...

The nVidia shaders are more general purpose shaders compared to most of the ones that ATI uses. However, once the client, cores and work units are more complex I'm sure the ATI cards will work out very well. What you may be seeing are two different types of work units for either card. The ATI cards have a shitload of shaders and I'm sure in some instances this will work out very well for ATI cards.

A lot of it has to do with optimizations and putting the right work to the right client.

 
If you're looking for points now, don't get an ATI card. Who know's how long you'll be waiting for an optimized client that doesn't suck up an entire cpu core. Those of us who have bought ATI cards for folding have just been disappointed time and time again. nVidia's cards are folding monsters and they're doing it now. My 2 cents...
 
Personally for the price the 8800GT at 104.99 after rebate is hard to pass up and should produce 5k PPD... a few of those until the higher $200 cards work their magic out is the way I'm going. I can always resell the GT's for say 75 each... and then upgrade.

 
*disclaimer: My knowledge of video cards and GPU clients is just above novice at best /disclaimer

If you are just itching to get something now, try to get something available for the EVGA step up program, or another manufacturer if there is another one available. If the 90800 GTX+ comes out and allows the points per day per watt to be in the upper end you can jump up there and grab one of those for the step up price. Or, you can just stay with what you get.

Just my thoughts though.

 
If you're serious about considering the 4850, I'd probably wait until ati's partner's start coming out with dual slot coolers since the single slot gets pretty toasty. That would be one thing i would consider or buying one now and getting a better cooler for it. The regular 8800GT cooler isn't any better really but there's tons of aftermarker coolers already installed from vendors.
 
Wheresatom said:
*disclaimer: My knowledge of video cards and GPU clients is just above novice at best /disclaimer

If you are just itching to get something now, try to get something available for the EVGA step up program, or another manufacturer if there is another one available. If the 90800 GTX+ comes out and allows the points per day per watt to be in the upper end you can jump up there and grab one of those for the step up price. Or, you can just stay with what you get.

Just my thoughts though.

Click to expand...

This is something I have been thinking about..... hummmm

 
Wheresatom said:
If you are just itching to get something now, try to get something available for the EVGA step up program, or another manufacturer if there is another one available. If the 90800 GTX+ comes out and allows the points per day per watt to be in the upper end you can jump up there and grab one of those for the step up price. Or, you can just stay with what you get.
Click to expand...
There are factory OC 9800GTX cards already available that have greater performance than the 9800GTX+ will have. There's really no need to wait for this particular card if you want to buy now. NVidia released this card to compete with the HD4850 but will come short of the mark.

 
drgnfang said:
I thought the different designs of the shader units is what made the difference (other than drivers) in their folding ability. The shader units in the Nvidia cards, though fewer in number, are better able to be leveraged for non-graphics work.

Note: Not an expert, just remembering something I read in another thread.

Click to expand...

While you are right that the shaders design is a bit different between NVIDIA and ATI, Mike Houston (ATI GPGPU guru) said that almost all can be used one way or another for folding so when they will tweak the core to tap into all the available power, it would match NVIDIA cards in terms of production. The only question is "when" and this is why I would be a bit hesitant to push anyone to buy ATI if the main purpose is for folding.

 
Whatever happened to the original F@H concept of using only idle computer cycles to do research?

That "idle cycles" part seems to have been removed from the web site.

Now a days if you want to be competitive and do anything that's worth while science wise it's starting to require specialized purchases. That totally violates the spirit if not entire original concept under which all these teams were formed and we as members were led to believe.

A good cause volunteer effort has now turned into a major marketing scheme where the only true winners are Stanford, ATI and NVIDIA.

Then there is the whole part about Stanford not even being recognized as a legitimate effort thus we are denied even the benefit of a tax break.:rolleyes:


 
BillR said:
Whatever happened to the original F@H concept of using only idle computer cycles to do research?

That "idle cycles" part seems to have been removed from the web site.

Now a days if you want to be competitive and do anything that's worth while science wise it's starting to require specialized purchases. That totally violates the spirit if not entire original concept under which all these teams were formed and we as members were led to believe.

A good cause volunteer effort has now turned into a major marketing scheme where the only true winners are Stanford, ATI and NVIDIA.

Then there is the whole part about Stanford not even being recognized as a legitimate effort thus we are denied even the benefit of a tax break.:rolleyes:


Click to expand...

I'll play devil's advocate and I will say it's the users who are making what F@H is currently. We all are like heroin addicts and when we see more points, we take advantage of them and we fall into a vicious circle (Stanford is also falling in it as well). It seems Stanford wanted faster returns on research so using only idle cycles is not helping them doing research in a timely manner, hence the push for high performance clients and big bonuses.

 
BillR said:
Whatever happened to the original F@H concept of using only idle computer cycles to do research?

That "idle cycles" part seems to have been removed from the web site.

Now a days if you want to be competitive and do anything that's worth while science wise it's starting to require specialized purchases. That totally violates the spirit if not entire original concept under which all these teams were formed and we as members were led to believe.

A good cause volunteer effort has now turned into a major marketing scheme where the only true winners are Stanford, ATI and NVIDIA.

Then there is the whole part about Stanford not even being recognized as a legitimate effort thus we are denied even the benefit of a tax break.:rolleyes:


Click to expand...

I get what your saying about us getting away from what this was originally all about, but come on man. Why are you complaining that we are making things go faster? Who wants it to take longer for a cure to be found? Plain and simple. We use more processing power which leads to more data, which leads to better research, which leads to a faster cure. Whats wrong with that?
 
PuppeteerNessus said:
I get what your saying about us getting away from what this was originally all about, but come on man. Why are you complaining that we are making things go faster? Who wants it to take longer for a cure to be found? Plain and simple. We use more processing power which leads to more data, which leads to better research, which leads to a faster cure. Whats wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Nothing, as long as that remains the goal :cool:

Fame, Sex, and rock and roll.... wait, we are talking about folding..... just don't go broke with your (our) hobby ;)

 
Xilikon said:
I'll play devil's advocate and I will say it's the users who are making what F@H is currently. We all are like heroin addicts and when we see more points, we take advantage of them and we fall into a vicious circle (Stanford is also falling in it as well). It seems Stanford wanted faster returns on research so using only idle cycles is not helping them doing research in a timely manner, hence the push for high performance clients and big bonuses.

Click to expand...

Up to a point I agree with your position. I too was guilty of pushing the envelope back at the start when I had well over 25 machines running as an individual.

The other side of that coin is today, VJ pulls some ridiculous number out of his ass to encourage folders to move to new and more expensive hardware with no evidence that science has been or is being advanced. The fact is many folders are getting huge rewards in points with the GPU client when as was mentioned in another thread little or no science being accomplished.

Another way of putting it is, you are spending vast sums on points that won't even get you a cup of coffee.

Months ago many of us asked VJ to be accountable for more than his personal advancement and publicity. To date I have seen nothing along those lines. For all we as individuals do, where is the accountability?

There is none. All I see is feel good points on a chart.

Seven years or so I've been at this, show me some evidence.




 
BillR said:
Up to a point I agree with your position. I too was guilty of pushing the envelope back at the start when I had well over 25 machines running as an individual.

The other side of that coin is today, VJ pulls some ridiculous number out of his ass to encourage folders to move to new and more expensive hardware with no evidence that science has been or is being advanced. The fact is many folders are getting huge rewards in points with the GPU client when as was mentioned in another thread little or no science being accomplished.

Another way of putting it is, you are spending vast sums on points that won't even get you a cup of coffee.

Months ago many of us asked VJ to be accountable for more than his personal advancement and publicity. To date I have seen nothing along those lines. For all we as individuals do, where is the accountability?

There is none. All I see is feel good points on a chart.

Seven years or so I've been at this, show me some evidence.




Click to expand...

On the accountability side, I do agree fully with you and I hope they will show some proof soon enough to make all our collective effore worthwhile.

 
Sure I've been guilty of over doing it in the past. This go around I'm trying to be more sensible. But hobbies are just that...hobbies. The fact that I might be helping cure diseases is a great addition. I am also a camera buff. I tend to spend more on it than I should, but I enjoy it. But that is what life is about...enjoyment. Slapping new hardware on credit just for points is not advisable, but putting your disposable income towards this IMHO is fun. If it ceases to be fun, then I'll stop.

I agree they should work out a new point system, but if a new GPU is doing many times the amount of work than a CPU is doing, then I think it deserves more points accordingly. But to put out a client for one GPU that is optimized much better than the other is plain wrong. It makes me wonder if someone *cough* nVidia *cough* might be giving kickbacks or something. I am not a fan boy for either company. I currently own both companies cards. I want the best card I can afford. If it turns out that the ATI cards are poor performers for folding due to architecture, then I understand that. But to have a poorly "optimized" program put out during such a critical part in the life of a card smacks of favoritism.
 
OhSoCheesy, the reason NVIDIA got ahead very far vs ATI is just because Stanford gave the GPU2 code which works on ATI to NVIDIA so all they did is just tweak and make it run with their card while ATI took 3 years to build up that code. OTOH, the NVIDIA performance gave a good kick in the ass of Mike Houston so he will be working hard to tweak it to get up to par ;)

 
BillR said:
Whatever happened to the original F@H concept of using only idle computer cycles to do research?

That "idle cycles" part seems to have been removed from the web site.

Now a days if you want to be competitive and do anything that's worth while science wise it's starting to require specialized purchases. That totally violates the spirit if not entire original concept under which all these teams were formed and we as members were led to believe.

A good cause volunteer effort has now turned into a major marketing scheme where the only true winners are Stanford, ATI and NVIDIA.

Then there is the whole part about Stanford not even being recognized as a legitimate effort thus we are denied even the benefit of a tax break.:rolleyes:


Click to expand...

This is all good stuff to be thinking about. Idle cycles are a good resource that builds a good base for VJ's group to work from. However as some others have said, there is nothing wrong with pushing the science faster by making more resources available to VJ.
Even the Folding website states the project started out working on model systems which equates to simple small "easy" to compute projects. As they get confidence that these massive calculations are giving them the right answers they move onto more complex and medically relevant systems. It is not possible to compute your way to a cure or a drug. No way. These models get refined and tested experimentally, in the lab, and if there is good agreement they move on, if not, they try and figure out what went wrong and try again. In any case when they move on it is to bigger and more complex calculations which require greater resources. Is it wrong or vain to buy more hardware just for folding or "mostly" for folding? I'd say no. People contribute money and resources to all sorts of causes they believe in: their church, hospitals, charitable organizations or even political groups. It's their money and their choice. Some of us have spent a fair amount or even a LOT of money on folding hardware and upkeep. The more resources you throw at Stanford the more points you get. So what. We like to have our friendly competitions, but in the end if we are doing it for anything else than to advance the biophysical chemistry, which will in turn inspire a biologist or medicinal chemist to start a new therapeutic research program we are wasting our time here. That is, unless you like developing computational tools for macromolecular structure modeling. Yawn.

It shouldn't be surprising that the Stanford folks need to validate their new GPU client to make sure it is working as they had hoped. There are a lot of variables at work here. How often at work is new software rolled out that doesn't have an unexpected negative consequence to other software that has been working just fine, or just doesn't roll out as expected. I think we all see this quite frequently even though we hope it doesn't happen.

I think what we have to be most concerned about is that VJ is able to balance the theoretical aspects of what he is doing while trying to take what he is learning and applying it as best he can to areas that will lead eventually to new therapeutics. This is going to be a really slow process. I think they can use all the cpu/gpu time they can get.

And finally to end my longest post ever..... If you are looking for evidence of the science that is being accomplished you will have to look only one place:

http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Papers

What else would they ever be able to give us?

 
HighYield said:
This is all good stuff to be thinking about. Idle cycles are a good resource that builds a good base for VJ's group to work from. However as some others have said, there is nothing wrong with pushing the science faster by making more resources available to VJ.
Even the Folding website states the project started out working on model systems which equates to simple small "easy" to compute projects. As they get confidence that these massive calculations are giving them the right answers they move onto more complex and medically relevant systems. It is not possible to compute your way to a cure or a drug. No way. These models get refined and tested experimentally, in the lab, and if there is good agreement they move on, if not, they try and figure out what went wrong and try again. In any case when they move on it is to bigger and more complex calculations which require greater resources. Is it wrong or vain to buy more hardware just for folding or "mostly" for folding? I'd say no. People contribute money and resources to all sorts of causes they believe in: their church, hospitals, charitable organizations or even political groups. It's their money and their choice. Some of us have spent a fair amount or even a LOT of money on folding hardware and upkeep. The more resources you throw at Stanford the more points you get. So what. We like to have our friendly competitions, but in the end if we are doing it for anything else than to advance the biophysical chemistry, which will in turn inspire a biologist or medicinal chemist to start a new therapeutic research program we are wasting our time here. That is, unless you like developing computational tools for macromolecular structure modeling. Yawn.

It shouldn't be surprising that the Stanford folks need to validate their new GPU client to make sure it is working as they had hoped. There are a lot of variables at work here. How often at work is new software rolled out that doesn't have an unexpected negative consequence to other software that has been working just fine, or just doesn't roll out as expected. I think we all see this quite frequently even though we hope it doesn't happen.

I think what we have to be most concerned about is that VJ is able to balance the theoretical aspects of what he is doing while trying to take what he is learning and applying it as best he can to areas that will lead eventually to new therapeutics. This is going to be a really slow process. I think they can use all the cpu/gpu time they can get.

And finally to end my longest post ever..... If you are looking for evidence of the science that is being accomplished you will have to look only one place:

http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Papers

What else would they ever be able to give us?

Click to expand...

You too make a very valid point, no argument.

My issue is simple, all this is to find a cure. One would think with all the papers produced people other than us would be reading them.

As it happens I use the Hershey Medical Center for all my ills and HMC is a huge part of a very well known and established part of Penn State Medical, in fact HMC is THE teaching hospital. They among others are leaders in cancer research, in fact HMC along with a huge clinic in Ohio are the leaders.

I ask then, why when I lost my father two years ago to cancer neither facility including the heads of said facilities have no clue who VJ Pande is? Certainly the heads of these prestigious hospitals would be among those who would do Peer Review on Stanford's work.

If you do a search of Stanford.edu you will find many many publicized projects but if you are looking for Dr. Pande you better dig very deep. When after a long search you do find his project it's a few polite entries but that's about it.

Please don't look at my comments as a blame thing because they are not. I'm simply stating from firsthand experience that after watching my father go through much experimental treatment from the top people in the field, not one ever heard of Pande and folding at home. One would think after all these years some Dr. Somewhere would look at this research and at least know about it let alone give it credibility.

Certainly as a group we have all 48 contiguous states covered, don't trust me, call a local cancer center near you and ask for the head of Oncology if they have knowledge of VJ or his work.

All I have been asking for is simple validation that what we are doing is actually accomplishing anything.




 
BillR said:
All I have been asking for is simple validation that what we are doing is actually accomplishing anything.
Click to expand...

Maybe we're not finding a cure for anything at this point, but instead building a base of knowledge that may result in some breakthrough in the future. Protein folding is a complex thing. I look at it like the discovery of DNA structure, encoding, and the eventual completion of the Human Genome Project - those things in and of themselves did not "cure" anything, but they have given scientists and doctors additional knowledge about biology and medicine so that breakthroughs *could* be made later on.

 
HighYield said:
This is all good stuff to be thinking about. Idle cycles are a good resource that builds a good base for VJ's group to work from. However as some others have said, there is nothing wrong with pushing the science faster by making more resources available to VJ.

Click to expand...

A point Bill is trying to make about "idle cycles" that many people are missing is that it's getting to the point where you're not using just idle cycles. My evidence for this is the nVidia GPU client. I couldn't watch a ripped DVD movie or play a game while the nVidia GPU client was running. One of two things happened: either the client EUE'd constantly or the game or movie had the performance of an S3 Trio card.

At one time this was not a problem and you would never know that folding was running in the background. Even now, the SMP client usually doesn't have a problem releasing CPU cycles needed for other programs, but the RAM is never freed up. That's not a problem for me as I have 4 gig of RAM in my main system, but there are still few people that do have that much RAM.

Yes, I have boxen built primarily for folding. I've got two quads running which do practically nothing but fold. One of them only folds. The other I have a WinXP VM loaded up for doing some stats processing for a couple IRC channels. I don't need a quad to do that especially since I was previously running that on a PIII 800 with 512 meg of RAM. Sure, the stats process about 1-2 seconds quicker than before, but that's not really a big deal.

What Bill and myself are saying is simple. Stanford is taking advantage of us and moving away from one of the original promises of the project: you wouldn't notice the client running. There's nothing wrong with buying hardware just for folding. I'm a dirt poor single parent and I have 7 computers in my little apartment running non-stop on two different DC projects. That's my choice. However, most of these systems would still be perfectly functional for a main system for just about anyone but a hardcore gamer to use and a couple of them would be just fine for that by tossing in a decent video card.

My quads will not be outdated anytime soon as far as general computing goes. However, the same can't be said for the F@H project. Look at the emphasis on the SMP client. To me, it's not worth running F@H on anything with less than 2 cores since the points are flat out shitty for the regular console client. Add to that the lousy stability of the WinSMP client and it makes things worse for many people.

Then, take into account the GPU folding. It's point structure is sky high and stupid. Yes, I called the amount of points the GPU client (at least the nVidia client) stupid. There is no reason for this. Add into the fact that the GPU1 client has been killed and people who bought ATI cards just for that a while back have gotten shafted. Before too long, I expect something similar with the current crop of cards. The client itself doesn't need to be killed for this to happen, it would just take a change in points for the GPU client or certain work units for the clients to be released which only run worth a damn on brand new cards. We've seen this happen a lot in the last couple of years. The GPU1 client was killed off and the point structure for the SMP client. I still think the SMP work units are overvalued and a shitload of people are going to be screaming when they get changed.

I have nothing against advancements in processing in regards to F@H. I say bring them on. However, Stanford is not making proper use of these resources the multitudes of us are donating to Stanford's cause. As soon as something new comes out, Stanford jumps all over it, gives it a ludicrous point scale to get people on board, and then practically forgets about the last big thing. That leaves a lot of people hanging and when you're talking about the type of money many of us have put towards folding, that's not a good thing.

Yes, I know this has been a really long winded and meandering post, but these are only some of the complaints some of us have and I don't think you can convince me they aren't valid points.

As you can tell, I haven't stopped folding and I don't plan on stopping anytime soon. Bill and myself are just trying to point out the "hazards" of getting into it too much. This started out as a "spare cycle" project. It has lately turned into something completely different; especially with the current points structure and all the different clients. I personally think it's going to get more and more difficult to recruit people to the project with the way things are going. I say this because it is to the point where you almost have to have top of the line hardware to make a difference in the stats. Few people have that kind of hardware and don't want to spend the money on it. Yet, the competition with the points is the reason many of us spend a shitload of money to get higher and higher in the ranks. Not everyone is going to do something like that and they will get discouraged.

 
I think I misunderstood where you were coming from with the idle cycles. You are right that the software is demanding more than just idle cpu power. When I first installed the GPU client on my HTPC it rendered it it just about useless. I could barely open and close a web browser let alone do something useful with it. Hopefully those are growing pains. I haven't been folding very long, but I have noticed that the beta software is still beta from when I started and from what everyone seems to be saying that might not change much in the future.

I also missed what you were saying about what results Vijay's group have been getting. They sure have published a lot of papers, but have medical professionals heard of them or Vijay's group? Probably not. Biophysical chemistry is real specialized stuff. Doctors and nursers that you would meet at a clinic are going to be masters of the medicine and treatments that are available now and approved by the FDA. The macromolecular modeling that Vijay is doing is way deep back into the drug pipe line/drug discovery process. What is cool about what Vijay is doing is that it is new and massive. The DC part isn't new, United Devices showed that it could be done (and you folks would know better than I, other early DC projects that demonstrated the ulitity of this type of computation). I think what Vijay is doing if he keeps making a lot of progress is open up some new doors that researchers might not have known were there. To open a new area would be the break though and then others would follow through with a new therapeutic research program. What I find attractive about this whole process is that I can lend a hand to. I can be a lazy bastard and let my boxen do all the work. I have also learned a lot about computing from all of you guys, although I still can't figure out what relic is doing, but maybe if I hang out around here long enough I will. :)

Stanford is a great place. There are others at the chemistry department that have made many deep contributions to the science of chemistry (which is totally pivotal to finding new drugs). Barry Trost and Paul Wender are probably much more widely recognized in scientific circles related to medicinal chemistry than Vijay. Yet Vijay has touched directly more non-scientists' lives and raised more awareness than his much senior colleagues. All of these guys are training the next generation of researchers that will enter medicinal chemistry, process chemistry, biophysical chemistry and other things less medically relevant. Their names won't roll out in conversation at a medical clinic with patients, but I think there is a place for Vijay's work and it's worth our cpu cycles. If you are looking for the most direct and quickest way to help in the battle against cancer (read that find drug that cures) some of your money might be well served by donating directly to Penn State Medical or the American Cancer Society.

I also agree that the points do need rebalanced somehow so that everyone can feel they are contributing in a meaningful way and not get discouraged.

Now I must apologize to Kendrak for rambling on in his post about 9800GTXs vs 4850s.
Maybe wait a week or two and see if some prices come down a little bit more....and give me a little more time to catch up with you ;)

Fold On.

 
I have been folding as long as anyone here.
I'd like to point out that, yes, this started out as a 'spare cycles' thing. But most of us, even very early in the game, started buying more CPU than we needed just to fold a bit more. I know that there were dozens of [H] dual AMD XP systems folding, back when no one really needed an SMP system.

GPU folding means that you can take a cheap box, throw in a $150 video card and play with the big boys. Or you can buy a Quad run 2xSMP + GPU and get even more output.

But the point is that this has always been the way, things change, we change with the times.

There was a time when my slot1 celeron 333s@400 made a real folding contribution....now all that is left of them are the stories of the original "pizza boxen".

With GPU folding we're getting close to the way it used to be, a cheap box with one good part can compete. Today you can compete with a GPU or CPU. I see this as a good thing.
 
I got a 8800gt off Ebay for under 150 shipped, and no bloddy rebates. That should hold me over for a while. The file server needed a video card ;) (I will probably swap this into my main rig and move the 8800GTS 320 into the file server.)

I'm probably going to end up with a 4850, but I want to see the results when we get some WU that can handle it.

Fold on!

 
Thanks Xilikon for the education. I thought Stanford did the client building, not the card companies. I Really need to build a new system for my girlfriend's son. I can't figure out why it freezes with no good reason (that I know of). It isn't my build, so I'd rather start over with fresh parts, but with nVidia parts coming down I'm still trying to figure out which card to put in there. The 9800gtx is down to $200 now, but HD4850 can get down to $150. I guess I'll give it a bit more time to see how it shakes out. Thanks!
 
OhSoCheesy said:
I can't figure out why it freezes with no good reason (that I know of). It isn't my build, so I'd rather start over with fresh parts
Click to expand...

Throw some Mojo on it :D
If that doesn't work, put some 'tussin on it....that stuff fixes everything.
 
spray some windex on it, and make it take some tussin. those 2 things will fix anything.
 
LOL!! Great idea guys! Well, I'll probably donate the CPU and MOBO to the boxen program and let them sort it out and start from scratch. I'm thinking its the motherboard because sometimes when you put something into the USB ports, they either don't work or cause a hard lock. Its an AMD 939 board (Biostar I think). Its not worth upgrading, but it folds pretty well. If memory serves it has a 3800+ or something in it. But first the video card mess has to settle down. Not that I'm complaining about price drops :D but its still a tough decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top