P8101 is now mainstream -bigadv

If that is true, then a REVERSE core hack could get you more PPD on a 4p box. Trick the core into thinking you have 12 threads instead of 32 and you get a 6903.

If that happens i'm going to fall over laughing as thats embarrising for Stanford.

 

The reverse core hack would give you the same performance as 12 threads though. You could get the 12 thread units but with lower performance. Running multiple 6903 might come close to a single 8101 but that's not what Stanford wants so there isn't really any reason to try it out.

 

Zink, I don't understand you. The "core hack" (script) only provides system information to the Stanford assignment servers. It does not limit CPU engagement. It neither increases nor decreased a system's performance on any given work unit.

I advise neither for nor against using the script.

 

After poking around a little on the FF site, I am guessing the 8101 WU is setup as a punishment for doing the corehack trick. Also looks like Stanford/PandeGroup does not care if you did it or not, but everyone will suffer because it was used.

 

Pulling 00:13:54 333366 PPD on my quad 6176
Pulling 00:25:39 133367 PPD on my X5650 SR-2#

For comparison, AMD rig gets near 500K on a 6903 and the SR-2 around 160K

 

so it's not such a hit to lower end rigs like 2P's, but on 4P's, especially fast ones, it's a swift kick in the balls? Kinda defeats the whole point of the QRB right lol

 

33% loss on the 48 core and 20% loss on the 24 thread

 

We feel you biffa. For about the same amout of time, a 6903 gets me 514K PPD, and an 8101 gets me 350K PPD, 32% reduction. (13:30 TPF 0.94 days completion 8101 vs 13:51 0.96 days completion 6903)

 

More data.

G34 4P, 32-core, 4 X 6136, 12.5% OC, 2.4 @ 2.7GHz:
Typical TPF & PPD for usual projects 6901 and 6903, plus first instance of 8101 --
6901, 07;45, 274,000
6903, 17:11, 372,200
8101, 16:42, 253,900

So, at least with this system, if compared to 6903 processing, which requires approximately the same system resources, as measured by time/frame, points yield is 32% less. Points yield, as compared to a 6901 (a 12-core qualifying unit), is 7% less.

If the intent for this project was to be difficulty/award parity with the original bigadv project 6901, they aren't too far off. (Is 6900 considered bigadv?)

I really don't know what my opinion is on the change. I was one of the users, who a few months back, was very concerned about the ever increasing PPD inflation. On the other hand, my emotional reaction now is, what on Earth...!?

At present, I am not prepared to render a judgment of 'good' or 'bad,'

 

Actually the 8101 is the result of a few people repeatedly griping about the QRB and starting threads about the unfairness of the point system. There were a few of us mostly Nathan P, Patriot and myself that have tried to counter there post over the last year or so, but unfortunately the other side was able to convince Stanford that the bigadv folders were getting too many points and that the points system was out of whack and needed to be adjusted.

They used all kinds of different arguments to get there point across and I failed at convincing Stanford otherwise we really did not have allot of support from the folding community itself, I believe this is due to the fact that most of the folders never visit the FF anyway, and the proponents were asking folders from there perspective forums to come and post on the FF in the threads about the point system.

In hind site I probably should have done the same and who knows perhaps we would not be where we are now.

 

This could be wrong but from googling: The "core hack" actually provides information to the client about how many simultaneous threads the CPU can handle. In google images I can see people who have the hack active on a 2500k show that the WU maps to 8 threads that all run at once on the 4 cores. If you tell the client you only have 12 or 15 cores then it will only run that many threads and you will need multiple clients to saturate the CPUs. It's probably a bad idea but if PPD was slightly higher that would make Standford look stupid.

 

No the fah client will use it to use as many cores as you tell it to use if you set it to -smp 48 it will use 48 cores. The core hack has nothing to do with the fah client or folding it just reports the core count as what ever you tell it to report.

 

You dont need any hack to report less cores. On a 48 core box you could run 4 instances of -smp 12 if you wanted.

 

Grandpa, I was one of the people, who about 8 or 9 months ago, expressed my concern about the rapid rate of increase of points awards. You probably read my comments at FF, which I hardly believe were "griping." (you're still my friend ) Low and behold, Pande Group did adjust the QRB K factor a while later, which, at the time, I thought was a reasonable action. Perhaps I wasn't paying close enough attention, but I thought the first adjustment was the fix, so to speak. Except for the beta testers, I don't think any of us saw this next (8101) adjustment coming.

 

It has been talked about in the DAB (and is still)

Might I suggest letting Stanford know what you all think of the 8101 by starting a thread in the FF. (They don't read too much in the team forums, and I can't blame them, there are quite a few.)

Please be respectful and kind. State your case and stats to back it up. Pitchforks and torches don't help.

I am trying in the DAB. I am it seems outnumbered.

 

Can you provide a link to that particular discussion?
Thanks.

 

I delved into FF (shudder) and found this thread http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21036

I think this is what they are talking about.

I'm going back into Genmay where it is safe.

 

He just shrugged the matter off and went about business as usual.

 

Well so far we're still putting up more PPD than EVGA. When is this supposed to start effecting us?

 

They are in the wild now.

 

The day [H]ardocp gives up, takes it in the ass, and loses unity and integrity.

 

I meant when should we start seeing points fall, as long as we still produce more PPD than EVGA we will eventually catch them. So far, we're still doing more PPD than they are.

 

I just got a 6904 which I haven't seen since last month.

 

I knew what you meant, I just wanted to throw in some inspiration . EVGA does have -bigadv machines, so they will be effected as well. We will have to wait and see how we are all effected by this before we come to any conclusions.

 

Probably will not notice it due to recent additions to the team Atlas / tear is back on line it looks like core32 may have added a little something ChelseaOilmans recent addition of some faster chips and that is just the ones I know of. Some of the MP rigs or all will be running the core hack or other work around. It is probably enough to maintain our daily production at least for a while. or maybe even increase it. But it is mainly due to increased cpu cycles. If all of these thing were not happening then the production would probably decrease somewhere around 10% to 15%

 

Well if I didn't have so many projects going at once, I would have built a 4p by now. (or at least have the money waiting to purchase parts)

 

If anyone cares to add their TPF numbers to the team database that would be cool...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aspl6-RkaxtFdHdTdUdmUjhWalpXWVZ2S2xvejBDcHc

BTW if you would copy the first set of data down then change user/system/tpf to ensure formulas are copied that would be great.

I changed bonus so that it will set to 1 if you don't meet the preferred deadlines.

 

I'm gonna try to add mine, feel free to PM me if I f it up.

edit
Nevermind, seen it was BigAdvPPD only.

 

I have a friend who's folding an 8101 now with an MC 2P. He's reporting that it will miss the preferred deadline. Not sure which CPUs he's running. He's an [H] forums member and has folded for the Horde before. I've asked him to come here and post, as well as FF.

 

It would be interesting to get the machine specs.

 

What is this "core hack or other work around" that some or all of your team is using?

 

The answer can be found in the first couple hits of googling:

"linux corehack script"

Adding 'overclockers.net' can narrow it down even more

 

I can't make the preferred deadline with my 2P. 2x6136

 

When I had my 2x 6128, back of the envelope math told me it wouldn't make the 8101 preferred deadline. By at least a day.

 

Judging on 6904 times vs 8101s my dual l5639 won't either by at least a day.

 

You are soo close.
Need to find a way to get you overclocked...
Is that a 2p or 4p board?

 

Be nice.

 

Asus 2p, Asus KGPE-D16.

I also have a Tyan board, S8230GM4NR, with 2x6134.