Folding Forum

mdk777 wrote: 3 x -smp4 on the same 12 core machine should generate something in the neighborhood(not equal but closer) of the one 12 core bigadv.

The QRB was instituted because of a similar situation. The Pande Group didn't want people doing multiple SMP units concurrently even though at the time that setup could earn slightly better PPD than doing one SMP unit almost twice as fast. They wanted to emphasize speed over quantity.

mdk777 wrote:3 x -smp4 on the same 12 core machine should generate something in the neighborhood(not equal but closer) of the one 12 core bigadv.

When I say no motivation, I really meant significantly diminished motivation. (some people will do anything for a few percent, but rational people recognize the diminishing return.)

I agree, up to a point. There must always be a difference between 3 x -smp4 and 1 x -smp12. The difference doesn't need to be large, but the science dictates that 1 x -smp12 is more valuable than 3 x -smp4. Any "motivational factor" that differentiates between the two choices has to always favor smp12 but it can be as small as "a few percent" as long as it's in the right direction.

EDIT: Oops. Zagen30 beat me to it.

tank1023 wrote:. . . I was unable to complete a 6904 in the prefered deadline . . .

This post has been removed as it is off-topic. P6904 is a beta project. If you have concerns about a beta project, the place to discuss it is in the beta forum.

bruce wrote:

mdk777 wrote:3 x -smp4 on the same 12 core machine should generate something in the neighborhood(not equal but closer) of the one 12 core bigadv.

When I say no motivation, I really meant significantly diminished motivation. (some people will do anything for a few percent, but rational people recognize the diminishing return.)

I agree, up to a point. There must always be a difference between 3 x -smp4 and 1 x -smp12. The difference doesn't need to be large, but the science dictates that 1 x -smp12 is more valuable than 3 x -smp4. Any "motivational factor" that differentiates between the two choices has to always favor smp12 but it can be as small as "a few percent" as long as it's in the right direction.

EDIT: Oops. Zagen30 beat me to it.

From some recent results of a switch back to regular smp after a delay in getting bigadv Wu's on one rig, the recent bigadv points reduction has the P2684 bigadv returning similar or less ppd
than normal smp Wu's, so where is the motivation for running the bigger and more hardware demanding P2684 now ?, as in the past the rest of the bigadv Wu's have a reasonable
advantage over the P2684, but there's still enough of them around to make a difference.....

Is the problem that p2684 production is too low or that p750x (and several others) production is too high? Q6600s @ 3.0 GHz, which were supposed to make about 4800 ppd when the QRB was introduced are now making upwards of 10,000 ppd on the p750x series of WUs. 2600Ks make over 40,000 ppd on them. It seems that despite benchmarking, there is a trend for new WUs to provide progressively greater ppd on both -bigadv and -smp. Now the latest -smp WUs, following the trend, have passed the earliest (currently) -bigadv WU.

Jester wrote:...
From some recent results of a switch back to regular smp after a delay in getting bigadv Wu's on one rig, the recent bigadv points reduction has the P2684 bigadv returning similar or less ppd
than normal smp Wu's, so where is the motivation for running the bigger and more hardware demanding P2684 now ?, as in the past the rest of the bigadv Wu's have a reasonable
advantage over the P2684, but there's still enough of them around to make a difference.....

Please always include a description of the hardware specs when making a post about WU performance, otherwise we have no frame of reference for comparison. Thanks.

7im wrote:

Jester wrote:...
From some recent results of a switch back to regular smp after a delay in getting bigadv Wu's on one rig, the recent bigadv points reduction has the P2684 bigadv returning similar or less ppd
than normal smp Wu's, so where is the motivation for running the bigger and more hardware demanding P2684 now ?, as in the past the rest of the bigadv Wu's have a reasonable
advantage over the P2684, but there's still enough of them around to make a difference.....

Please always include a description of the hardware specs when making a post about WU performance, otherwise we have no frame of reference for comparison. Thanks.

That is for all hardware 7im the 2684's are under valued compared to other bigadv WU's and I have yet hear anybody say any diffrent. and I have a strong feeling they are being dumped since I am getting 40+ % 2684's. I can make as much or more running -smp as I can 2684's. If I were folding for points I would dump them also. They are among the hardest bigadv WU's to run, you can run a higher OC and complete all the other bigadv WU's. Inorder to run them you not only get less PPD than running smp you also loose PPD on your other bigadv WU's because you had to lower your OC to run them stinking 2684's.

Good quality feedback is how you get better results. All I was asking for was a few more details so PG will have enough information to better understand the situation you're reporting.

7im wrote:GGood quality feedback is how you get better results. All I was asking for was a few more details so PG will have enough information to better understand the situation you're reporting.

No problem 7im, the rig in question is running 2 x 5620 quadcore Xeons @ 3.8Ghz on an SR-2.