P8101 is now mainstream -bigadv

Status
Not open for further replies.
extide said:
Well the 8P is still 2 sticks for each 6 cores, just DDR2 instead of 3..
Click to expand...

Yes, they are talking about memory bandwidth. DDR2 has less bandwidth than DDR3.
DDR2 667: 12.0ns Cas 4
DDR2 800: 12.5ns Cas 5

DDR3 1333: 9.0ns Cas 6

So you can see the difference there.
 
Untitledone said:
Yes, they are talking about memory bandwidth. DDR2 has less bandwidth than DDR3.
DDR2 667: 12.0ns Cas 4
DDR2 800: 12.5ns Cas 5

DDR3 1333: 9.0ns Cas 6

So you can see the difference there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was just talking about the difference between 2 channel and quad channel. But yeah, the ddr3 is definitely going to be lower latency and more bandwidth.
 
Since they came out all I get is 8101 (3 so far).
At this rate I might as well use the 4P to render home made porn instead...
Are other people just getting 8101's as well?
 
WOLF_TEAM_LEADER said:
Since they came out all I get is 8101 (3 so far).
At this rate I might as well use the 4P to render home made porn instead...
Are other people just getting 8101's as well?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the last 6903 i got was one of the broken ones that doesn't process and just keeps trying to restart, so in a way its a good thing, the other way to look at it - the sooner they are folded, the sooner they are out of the way.........:D
 
I've only been getting 8101s but compared to other pcs, 300K per day is still pretty good.
 
I say we just mow them down like we "trim" each other :D
I have 50% of the components on order now for my third 4P rig.
P8101 is just an opportunity for [H] to shine, because they are [H]ard!

 
Core32 said:
I say we just mow them down like we "trim" each other :D
I have 50% of the components on order now for my third 4P rig.
P8101 is just an opportunity for [H] to shine, because they are [H]ard!

Click to expand...

You have no idea how much I love this Statement!

Fold on, fold [H]ard!
 
EDIT: Meh, never mind.
 
Last edited:
Nathan_P said:
Ref the points,found this very informative post by ChasR over on OCF
Click to expand...

He could be a paleontologist...
"Paleontologist create the most amount of data from the least amount of evidence."

I have heard one reference to having it run something on a 64 thread box Somewhere.
8101 is a memory hog so if they ran it on IL it would actually do better than MC... Unless your bus is overclocked.

The only problem with saying the put the points where they are closer to right is that they award it less points than the 6901 (which they fixed without us asking.)

I will also not saying it is 70% more than smp is Very in Err. The QRB curves of smp and BA diverge. The distance is not fixed and the raw % does not take into account increased wu overlap vs one big chunk. If the gap is not large at the top it may be faster to run smp on low end machines. I am going to be needing lots of smp data from the team on to help suggest an adjustment that would align the two curves.
 
Nathan linked:
The points on p8101 are lower, because they are closer to right than the points on p6903 and p6904. PG actually used a 4P machine to determine what they should be, then added to that so that they would be closer to the p690x series to avoid mutiny from the 4P donors.
THe BA points are so huge because the WUs were benchmarked on an i5. THe WUs filled the cache completely, slowing them way down, and made about 20% more than regular smp WUs. However run on a 4P machine, without any cache constraint, the BA WUs make much more than regular smp work. Even though reduced from p690x, p8101 still makes 70% more ppd than regular smp according to the data I've seen. Let me know if that data isn't correct.
I hope this is one of the rare teams that thanks PG for the nice bonus provided by p690x, rather than whines incessantly about the loss of ppd from p8101. So far so good.
Click to expand...
That would answer a lot of questions, but not this one - Why does it take a user to provide definitive information? Better than before, yes, but it's like pulling teeth getting Pande Group communicate effectively with their users. Stereotypical case of (unintentionally) aloof professors? Perhaps the 'definitive' information has always been out there, but it takes a concerted effort to find it?
 
Linden said:
Nathan linked: That would answer a lot of questions, but not this one - Why does it take a user to provide definitive information? Better than before, yes, but it's like pulling teeth getting Pande Group communicate effectively with their users. Stereotypical case of (unintentionally) aloof professors? Perhaps the 'definitive' information has always been out there, but it takes a concerted effort to find it?
Click to expand...

read my post above....
#1 because the answer is not straightforward ... and chasr is only half right...
#2 because the science was getting done...
#3 change?

That said I am impressed by VJ's comments in this thread : http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21367
 
What gets me, is the points on 6903/4 could have been seen in beta. They could have dialed it back before the work unit went around, let alone one year later. If they are going to trust one machine to benchmark these units, how is it not logical to accept data from multiple machines in beta to make these descisions? I would feel much less bitch slapped if they fixed it the week or so 6903/6904 lauched.

1.) Test with benchmark machine to ball park the points and intial values
2.) Release in beta and get feed back from the beta team on points
3.) Adjust the work unit as needed ( you do not need 100,000 WU from 1,000's of machines to see when points are off)

It is like we are getting slapped around for their error to begin with which they spent a year dancing around.
 
Last edited:
Clearly someone does not know what the beta concept is all about. What you said Untitledone makes sense to me, so I must know either :D
 
402blownstroker said:
Point was made in fun. I guess I should ahve added the smiley face.
Click to expand...

Indeed, smileys or winks are a must on forums as only opensource browsers support the HTML 10 "<sarcasm></sarcasm>" tags... ;)
 
402blownstroker said:
Point was made in fun. I guess I should ahve added the smiley face.
Click to expand...

Taken in fun as well, thus my poor attemp at the gangsta voice :eek:
Takes a lot to hurt my feelings, even if I thought you were trying ;)
Fold on. Just trying to give you something to shoot for......
 
Linden said:
Nathan linked: That would answer a lot of questions, but not this one - Why does it take a user to provide definitive information? Better than before, yes, but it's like pulling teeth getting Pande Group communicate effectively with their users. Stereotypical case of (unintentionally) aloof professors? Perhaps the 'definitive' information has always been out there, but it takes a concerted effort to find it?
Click to expand...

You actually have to visit the folding forum and folding web site once in a while to get information from PG. They don't deliver to other forums. ;)

For example, here is where kasson from PG talked about 6903s/6904s thrashing the cache and getting over-benchmarked vs. the p8101 work units...http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=207086#p207086 A thread several of your fellow [H]er's were active in, but neglected to relay that info. :eek:

The i5 benchmark is described in the Points FAQ on the fah web site.

etc... Not trying to pick a fight, just saying it's not about pulling teeth, or aloof professors. The info is usually out there. :D
 
Last edited:
Yes the info/data is out there regarding 8101, its a pity that most of it was and is being ignored;)
 
7im said:
You actually have to visit the folding forum and folding web site once in a while to get information from PG. They don't deliver to other forums. ;)

For example, here is where kasson from PG talked about 6903s/6904s thrashing the cache and getting over-benchmarked vs. the p8101 work units...http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=207086#p207086 A thread several of your fellow [H]er's were active in, but neglected to relay that info. :eek:

The i5 benchmark is described in the Points FAQ on the fah web site.

etc... Not trying to pick a fight, just saying it's not about pulling teeth, or aloof professors. The info is usually out there. :D
Click to expand...

7im he says it may have, That sounds like a possible theory, but you try and make it out to be a fact. It is not even close to that I very seriousley doubt that Kasson or anybody else even tested that theory let alone even made a statement that it was fact. Why do you do that that is not being very forth coming. That is just adding your own words to Kassons statement.

And linden is actually at the FF quite often just under another name.
 
Last edited:
7im, I did not, and am not now denying the information was available at FF. I am there nearly every day and am an active participate. PG communication with the users there has become much better than it used to be, much better, but I and others still find it difficult at times to find things. Maybe it's because we are accustomed to different Internet forums/bulletin board formats. I don't know.
 
Grandpa_01 said:
(...) very seriously doubt that Kasson or anybody else even tested that theory
Click to expand...
One guy ventures a guess, blind followers take it as revealed truth.
 
Linden said:
Nathan linked:
Quote:
The points on p8101 are lower, because they are closer to right than the points on p6903 and p6904. PG actually used a 4P machine to determine what they should be, then added to that so that they would be closer to the p690x series to avoid mutiny from the 4P donors.
THe BA points are so huge because the WUs were benchmarked on an i5. THe WUs filled the cache completely, slowing them way down, and made about 20% more than regular smp WUs. However run on a 4P machine, without any cache constraint, the BA WUs make much more than regular smp work. Even though reduced from p690x, p8101 still makes 70% more ppd than regular smp according to the data I've seen. Let me know if that data isn't correct.
I hope this is one of the rare teams that thanks PG for the nice bonus provided by p690x, rather than whines incessantly about the loss of ppd from p8101. So far so good.
Click to expand...
That would answer a lot of questions, but not this one - Why does it take a user to provide definitive information? Better than before, yes, but it's like pulling teeth getting Pande Group communicate effectively with their users. Stereotypical case of (unintentionally) aloof professors? Perhaps the 'definitive' information has always been out there, but it takes a concerted effort to find it?
Click to expand...
Linden you do realise this is I believe another one of those thread manipulations that the three amigos are so fond of, I suggested in that thread that 7im pointed to that they bench with a 4P machine and somehow it got turned into they did benchmark with a 4P. Some people change things to fit there wants and needs and the three amigos do it on a regular basis. I would like to see the thread where it says they were benchmarked on a 4P because if it exists I have never seen it. I try not to miss things at the FF, I could have but I doubt it. I could always PM Kasson and ask him, if it comes to that. ;)
 
Quoted statement 2 days ago
Nathan linked:
Quote:
The points on p8101 are lower, because they are closer to right than the points on p6903 and p6904. PG actually used a 4P machine to determine what they should be, then added to that so that they would be closer to the p690x series to avoid mutiny from the 4P donors.
THe BA points are so huge because the WUs were benchmarked on an i5. THe WUs filled the cache completely, slowing them way down, and made about 20% more than regular smp WUs. However run on a 4P machine, without any cache constraint, the BA WUs make much more than regular smp work. Even though reduced from p690x, p8101 still makes 70% more ppd than regular smp according to the data I've seen. Let me know if that data isn't correct.
I hope this is one of the rare teams that thanks PG for the nice bonus provided by p690x, rather than whines incessantly about the loss of ppd from p8101. So far so good.
Click to expand...
Well he is getting a little closer now he just needs to edit the rest of the fud out of it and he might get it right. What was actually said is that they we're also running these on a few of their own systems. and that preliminarily, the scaling data on these looked fairly good. And Kasson said I think the issue may be that 6903/6904 thrashed the cache on their benchmark machine and took much longer (hence the big jump in points assigned). But that's speculation. Kasson also said as they get timing data from a number of systems, they will re-evaluate the points assignment.

Quote statement from today
The points on p8101 are lower, because they are closer to right than the points on p6903 and p6904. PG actually used data from a variety of machines to help determine what they should be.
THe BA points are so huge because the WUs were benchmarked on an i5. THe WUs filled the cache completely slowing them way down, and made about 20% more than regular smp WUs. However run on a 4P machine, without any cache constraint, the BA WUs make much more than regular smp work. Even though reduced from p690x, p8101 still makes 70% more ppd than regular smp according to the data I've seen. Let me know if that data isn't correct.
I hope this is one of the rare teams that thanks PG for the nice bonus provided by p690x, rather than whines incessantly about the loss of ppd from p8101. So far so good.
Click to expand...

Now you all know what was actually said and do not go and spread this fud any further. ;)
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7172418&postcount=12
 
Last edited:
Grandpa_01 said:
Quoted statement 2 days ago

Well he is getting a little closer now he just needs to edit the rest of the fud out of it and he might get it right. What was actually said is that they we're also running these on a few of their own systems. and that preliminarily, the scaling data on these looked fairly good. And Kasson said I think the issue may be that 6903/6904 thrashed the cache on their benchmark machine and took much longer (hence the big jump in points assigned). But that's speculation. Kasson also said as they get timing data from a number of systems, they will re-evaluate the points assignment.

Quote statement from today


Now you all know what was actually said and do not go and spread this fud any further. ;)
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7172418&postcount=12
Click to expand...

What cache is he talking about? If I am not mistaken, my Istanbul's have the same cache per CPU as an i5 2500K, actually, 1MB less because probe filter consumes 1MB, bringing them down from 6MB to 5MB per CPU. I am not having problems running any of these units and keeping up with magny-cours.
 
from my DL585 G6 with 4 8425HEs (2.1GHz 6 cores)

Hi DEJ915 (team 33),
Your WU (P8101 R3 C6 G4) was added to the stats database on 2012-04-28 02:07:26 for 219310 points of credit.
Days taken to complete WU: 2.11
 
Core32 said:
Come on then! What are you waiting for? ;)
Just fortunate to be able to fund it, and got the itch bad when I read about these....
Click to expand...

Lack of funds, the desire to upgrade 2 rigs, pondering what to get and whether to wait for piledriver.

Still it is my birthday next month......
 
tear said:
One guy ventures a guess, blind followers take it as revealed truth.
Click to expand...


Kasson said what he said about 6903s/6904s. Kendrak, am I guessing blindly or not? :cool:


On another note, I did not see where PG said they benched on a 4P system as ChasR said, but then I don't have access to private conversations ChasR may or may not have had with kasson. The rest is accurate. Your own PPD tracking charts show the 8108s inline with most projects, while 6903s/6904s are the out-liers in the group. I'm open to any explanation, even one that contradicts what kasson has said. But until someone has a better idea, the statements fit the facts so far. ;) Sorry Gramps.
 
Last edited:
7im said:
Kasson said what he said about 6903s/6904s. Kendrak, am I guessing blindly or not? :cool:


On another note, I did not see where PG said they benched on a 4P system as ChasR said, but then I don't have access to private conversations ChasR may or may not have had with kasson. The rest is accurate. Your own PPD tracking charts show the 8108s inline with most projects, while 6903s/6904s are the out-liers in the group. I'm open to any explanation, even one that contradicts what kasson has said. But until someone has a better idea, the statements fit the facts so far. ;) Sorry Gramps.
Click to expand...

I will tell you what 7im I will ask Kasson mysel if he has ever changed his statement from what he orrignally posted about the 6903/6904's. So as to get this straightened out since you appear to be saying he has. I sure do not want to be spreading fud around.
 
You will be asking the wrong question, and won't get an answer. Others have tried.

He did not "change" what he originally posted. He added to it, reinforcing what he already said. 6903/4s were benched too high (and your charts prove it, nor have you tried to deny what your charts are saying), but it would cause a bigger stink over [H]ere to fix the PPD (lower them on 6903/4s) than to simply let those two projects finish out quietly and go away without so muc[H] stink.

I don't need any additional verbal confirmation from kasson. He'll provide plenty of confirmation by releasing more and more new bigadv projects at the same points level of the 8101s and 6901s.
 
Last edited:
Lets just fold em all away and wait for a new unit to gloat about or bitch about lol

been the way it works for years lol, fold on!
 
7im said:
You will be asking the wrong question, and won't get an answer. Others have tried.

He did not "change" what he originally posted. He added to it, reinforcing what he already said. 6903/4s were benched too high (and your charts prove it), but it would cause a bigger stink over [H]ere to fix the PPD (lower them on 6903/4s) than to simply let those two projects finish out quietly and go away without so muc[H] stink.

I don't need any additional verbal confirmation from kasson. He'll provide plenty of confirmation by releasing more and more new bigadv projects at the points level of the 8101s and 6901s.
Click to expand...

Yes 6903/4 were to high and they brought them down...
I really don't care why they ignored the beta testers when they released them...

6901/8101 just don't make any sense.
You can extrapolate on air all you wan't I will stick to the data.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top