[Poll] 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:47 pm
- Hardware configuration: Rig: Asus Rampage III Extreme, i7 990X @ 4.6GHz, Kingston HyperX 6GB 2000MHz @ 7-7-7-20-1T, Gigabyte GTX580 1.5GB @ 1000/2000/4800
Sys: W7x64, GeForce 197.75, SMP2 6.29 fahcore_a2 v2.10 / fahcore_a3 v2.21, SMP2 6.30 fahcore_a3 v2.22, GPU2 6.23 fahcore_11 v1.31 / fahcore_14 v1.26, GPU3 6.30r1 fahcore_15 v2.09 - Location: Belgrade,Serbia
- Contact:
[Poll] 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
I was interested in significance of single socket machines for -bigadv folding and it's share in % ?
If someone from PG or admin/mod can disclose those numbers, if can be taken out from statistics, or give a rough estimate, it would be nice.
To be honest, I wanted a proof, for some disbelievers, that there is a significance in all our efforts.
I was looking at -bigadv results, both a2 and a3, and there are some seriously fast 4c/8t rigs. Now with i7 980X there is even more power in single socket systems, taking over 2, 4 and even 8 socket systems.
I hope I'm not wrong giving an optimistic estimate of 80%, but I won't be discouraged to fold with my OC'd rig even if it's less then significant.
EDIT: After a small discussion, this became a poll. So, everybody feel free to check all machines you are using for -bigadv folding. All suggestions are welcome.
@"FARMERS" : Post your farm's specs if you don't mind (no obligation). I recommend posting specs, cause I'll collect all farm entries and add 'em up and display numbers here.
If someone from PG or admin/mod can disclose those numbers, if can be taken out from statistics, or give a rough estimate, it would be nice.
To be honest, I wanted a proof, for some disbelievers, that there is a significance in all our efforts.
I was looking at -bigadv results, both a2 and a3, and there are some seriously fast 4c/8t rigs. Now with i7 980X there is even more power in single socket systems, taking over 2, 4 and even 8 socket systems.
I hope I'm not wrong giving an optimistic estimate of 80%, but I won't be discouraged to fold with my OC'd rig even if it's less then significant.
EDIT: After a small discussion, this became a poll. So, everybody feel free to check all machines you are using for -bigadv folding. All suggestions are welcome.
@"FARMERS" : Post your farm's specs if you don't mind (no obligation). I recommend posting specs, cause I'll collect all farm entries and add 'em up and display numbers here.
Last edited by DonMarkoni on Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:01 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Rig: Rampage IV Extreme, i7-3930K @ 5GHz, AData 4x2GB @ 2400MHz 9-11-9-27-1T, GTX680 Lightning @ 1200/6000
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:45 pm
- Hardware configuration: 4p/4 MC ES @ 3.0GHz/32GB
4p/4x6128 @ 2.47GHz/32GB
2p/2 IL ES @ 2.7GHz/16GB
1p/8150/8GB
1p/1090T/4GB - Location: neither here nor there
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
Bruce had posted in another thread that the client can't distinguish between 8 real cores or 4 real cores + 4 virtual ones, it only sees 8 cores either way.
Now if there is actual data that show otherwise I too would be interested in it.
Now if there is actual data that show otherwise I too would be interested in it.
iustus quia...
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:33 am
- Hardware configuration: V7.6.21 -> Multi-purpose 24/7
Windows 10 64-bit
CPU:2/3/4/6 -> Intel i7-6700K
GPU:1 -> Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti
§
Retired:
2x Nvidia GTX 1070
Nvidia GTX 675M
Nvidia GTX 660 Ti
Nvidia GTX 650 SC
Nvidia GTX 260 896 MB SOC
Nvidia 9600GT 1 GB OC
Nvidia 9500M GS
Nvidia 8800GTS 320 MB
Intel Core i7-860
Intel Core i7-3840QM
Intel i3-3240
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550
Intel Core 2 Duo T8300
Intel Pentium E5500
Intel Pentium E5400 - Location: Land Of The Long White Cloud
- Contact:
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
For starters, you can use my data to help you estimate how many Windows bigadv users are there. You could also view this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 70#p131077 and this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 14#p110479 to see how many bigadv there are in total (its a best guess)
ETA:
Now ↞ Very Soon ↔ Soon ↔ Soon-ish ↔ Not Soon ↠ End Of Time
Welcome To The F@H Support Forum Ӂ Troubleshooting Bad WUs Ӂ Troubleshooting Server Connectivity Issues
Now ↞ Very Soon ↔ Soon ↔ Soon-ish ↔ Not Soon ↠ End Of Time
Welcome To The F@H Support Forum Ӂ Troubleshooting Bad WUs Ӂ Troubleshooting Server Connectivity Issues
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:45 pm
- Hardware configuration: 4p/4 MC ES @ 3.0GHz/32GB
4p/4x6128 @ 2.47GHz/32GB
2p/2 IL ES @ 2.7GHz/16GB
1p/8150/8GB
1p/1090T/4GB - Location: neither here nor there
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
That data is for A2's which are no longer available and also from those who bothered to post their system specs and frame times. It’s probably wouldn’t be a good estimation of what was actually being used to fold –bigadv with.PantherX wrote:For starters, you can use my data to help you estimate how many Windows bigadv users are there. You could also view this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 70#p131077 and this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 14#p110479 to see how many bigadv there are in total (its a best guess)
I would think that the data from A3’s would be more pertinent to the question at hand.
iustus quia...
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:33 am
- Hardware configuration: V7.6.21 -> Multi-purpose 24/7
Windows 10 64-bit
CPU:2/3/4/6 -> Intel i7-6700K
GPU:1 -> Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti
§
Retired:
2x Nvidia GTX 1070
Nvidia GTX 675M
Nvidia GTX 660 Ti
Nvidia GTX 650 SC
Nvidia GTX 260 896 MB SOC
Nvidia 9600GT 1 GB OC
Nvidia 9500M GS
Nvidia 8800GTS 320 MB
Intel Core i7-860
Intel Core i7-3840QM
Intel i3-3240
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550
Intel Core 2 Duo T8300
Intel Pentium E5500
Intel Pentium E5400 - Location: Land Of The Long White Cloud
- Contact:
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
I would agree but those system were contributing to bigadv since the trial started and it would make sense (to me at least) to include them as most if not all would continue to fold bigadv either by converting their systems to WIndows or when the Linux bigadv is made available. Also it would give a wide range of CPUs used in the original trial and how has that changed over the course.
ETA:
Now ↞ Very Soon ↔ Soon ↔ Soon-ish ↔ Not Soon ↠ End Of Time
Welcome To The F@H Support Forum Ӂ Troubleshooting Bad WUs Ӂ Troubleshooting Server Connectivity Issues
Now ↞ Very Soon ↔ Soon ↔ Soon-ish ↔ Not Soon ↠ End Of Time
Welcome To The F@H Support Forum Ӂ Troubleshooting Bad WUs Ӂ Troubleshooting Server Connectivity Issues
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:47 pm
- Hardware configuration: Rig: Asus Rampage III Extreme, i7 990X @ 4.6GHz, Kingston HyperX 6GB 2000MHz @ 7-7-7-20-1T, Gigabyte GTX580 1.5GB @ 1000/2000/4800
Sys: W7x64, GeForce 197.75, SMP2 6.29 fahcore_a2 v2.10 / fahcore_a3 v2.21, SMP2 6.30 fahcore_a3 v2.22, GPU2 6.23 fahcore_11 v1.31 / fahcore_14 v1.26, GPU3 6.30r1 fahcore_15 v2.09 - Location: Belgrade,Serbia
- Contact:
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
I know, but with some filtering of statistical data, it can be done. Maybe not precise, but I think it can. It is easy to filter out all those 4 and 8 socket systems, even 2 sockets/8 cores/16 threads. All that is left are 2 socket/8 core/8 threads systems, cause they can't be distinguished from i7's, but that could fall under statistical error.orion wrote:Bruce had posted in another thread that the client can't distinguish between 8 real cores or 4 real cores + 4 virtual ones, it only sees 8 cores either way.
Now if there is actual data that show otherwise I too would be interested in it.
No offense, but I was thinking of you when mentioning "disbelievers".
I did. By your data there is over 80% of single socket folders.PantherX wrote:For starters, you can use my data to help you estimate how many Windows bigadv users are there. You could also view this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 70#p131077 and this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 14#p110479 to see how many bigadv there are in total (its a best guess)
I also considered Grandpa_01's list, but I need more time to do statistics.
In the mean time, there is one thing to be noted (not you PantherX, disbelievers ): fastest i7 (4c/8t) is faster then 39 multi socket systems, and there is only 7 multi sock.sys. faster then the fastest 980X.
EDIT:
+1PantherX wrote:I would agree but those system were contributing to bigadv since the trial started and it would make sense (to me at least) to include them as most if not all would continue to fold bigadv either by converting their systems to WIndows or when the Linux bigadv is made available. Also it would give a wide range of CPUs used in the original trial and how has that changed over the course.
Rig: Rampage IV Extreme, i7-3930K @ 5GHz, AData 4x2GB @ 2400MHz 9-11-9-27-1T, GTX680 Lightning @ 1200/6000
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:45 pm
- Hardware configuration: 4p/4 MC ES @ 3.0GHz/32GB
4p/4x6128 @ 2.47GHz/32GB
2p/2 IL ES @ 2.7GHz/16GB
1p/8150/8GB
1p/1090T/4GB - Location: neither here nor there
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
No offence taken but a more realistic word would be skepticDonMarkoni wrote:I know, but with some filtering of statistical data, it can be done. Maybe not precise, but I think it can. It is easy to filter out all those 4 and 8 socket systems, even 2 sockets/8 cores/16 threads. All that is left are 2 socket/8 core/8 threads systems, cause they can't be distinguished from i7's, but that could fall under statistical error.orion wrote:Bruce had posted in another thread that the client can't distinguish between 8 real cores or 4 real cores + 4 virtual ones, it only sees 8 cores either way.
Now if there is actual data that show otherwise I too would be interested in it.
No offense, but I was thinking of you when mentioning "disbelievers".
If I had a pocket full of Dinar's and pulled out eight 1 dinar coins and two 5 dinar coins I could guess that the rest of the dinars in my pocket statistically would be the same, but I want the hard numbers. I would pull all the coins out and count them then I'd exactly what I had and not guess at it. But getting back to your data I would want to use it to if I were you to prove my point though it being at best a guesstimation. Remember when the –bigadv first started PG was doing it under the radar with some donors with big server farms, your guess is as good as mine would be on what they were using. And I don’t think that they were single socket i7’s.I did. By your data there is over 80% of single socket folders.PantherX wrote:For starters, you can use my data to help you estimate how many Windows bigadv users are there. You could also view this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 70#p131077 and this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 14#p110479 to see how many bigadv there are in total (its a best guess)
I also considered Grandpa_01's list, but I need more time to do statistics.
In the mean time, there is one thing to be noted (not you PantherX, disbelievers ): fastest i7 (4c/8t) is faster then 39 multi socket systems, and there is only 7 multi sock.sys. faster then the fastest 980X.
Still not a true representation of what was used. I never posted my 4p results, so there would be one not counted. But fill free to use the data as you fill free to do.EDIT:+1PantherX wrote:I would agree but those system were contributing to bigadv since the trial started and it would make sense (to me at least) to include them as most if not all would continue to fold bigadv either by converting their systems to WIndows or when the Linux bigadv is made available. Also it would give a wide range of CPUs used in the original trial and how has that changed over the course.
Besides I don’t think that that data was ever intended to show that there were more i7’s doing –bigadv than 2p or 4p systems. I believe that the OP wanted to find out how fast a certain system makeup could fold. But that’s my take on it, yours is different.
iustus quia...
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:47 pm
- Hardware configuration: Rig: Asus Rampage III Extreme, i7 990X @ 4.6GHz, Kingston HyperX 6GB 2000MHz @ 7-7-7-20-1T, Gigabyte GTX580 1.5GB @ 1000/2000/4800
Sys: W7x64, GeForce 197.75, SMP2 6.29 fahcore_a2 v2.10 / fahcore_a3 v2.21, SMP2 6.30 fahcore_a3 v2.22, GPU2 6.23 fahcore_11 v1.31 / fahcore_14 v1.26, GPU3 6.30r1 fahcore_15 v2.09 - Location: Belgrade,Serbia
- Contact:
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
I respect your opinions, but will stick to mine.
So, now we wait for some official response.
In the mean time, keep on folding!
So, now we wait for some official response.
In the mean time, keep on folding!
Rig: Rampage IV Extreme, i7-3930K @ 5GHz, AData 4x2GB @ 2400MHz 9-11-9-27-1T, GTX680 Lightning @ 1200/6000
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
How about official record:
These 645 million points were all recorded on muti-socket -bigadv machines.
http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... =&u=460688
For I7 to generate 80% of the work done, they would have had to generate what? 3.2 billion additional points.
Still, I would be interested in seeing the official break-down also.
These 645 million points were all recorded on muti-socket -bigadv machines.
http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... =&u=460688
For I7 to generate 80% of the work done, they would have had to generate what? 3.2 billion additional points.
Still, I would be interested in seeing the official break-down also.
Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!
-
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:36 am
- Hardware configuration: 3 - Supermicro H8QGi-F AMD MC 6174=144 cores 2.5Ghz, 96GB G.Skill DDR3 1333Mhz Ubuntu 10.10
2 - Asus P6X58D-E i7 980X 4.4Ghz 6GB DDR3 2000 A-Data 64GB SSD Ubuntu 10.10
1 - Asus Rampage Gene III 17 970 4.3Ghz DDR3 2000 2-500GB Segate 7200.11 0-Raid Ubuntu 10.10
1 - Asus G73JH Laptop i7 740QM 1.86Ghz ATI 5870M
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
I am pretty sure you can remove PDC and Anonymous from the stats and be fairly close. But judging by the amount of WU's PDC has returned and the amount of points received They are doing a Bigadv WU with time frames of 30min 11sec on Avg for an avg of 60711 points.mdk777 wrote:How about official record:
These 645 million points were all recorded on muti-socket -bigadv machines.
http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... =&u=460688
For I7 to generate 80% of the work done, they would have had to generate what? 3.2 billion additional points.
Still, I would be interested in seeing the official break-down also.
2 - SM H8QGi-F AMD 6xxx=112 cores @ 3.2 & 3.9Ghz
5 - SM X9QRI-f+ Intel 4650 = 320 cores @ 3.15Ghz
2 - I7 980X 4.4Ghz 2-GTX680
1 - 2700k 4.4Ghz GTX680
Total = 464 cores folding
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:45 pm
- Hardware configuration: 4p/4 MC ES @ 3.0GHz/32GB
4p/4x6128 @ 2.47GHz/32GB
2p/2 IL ES @ 2.7GHz/16GB
1p/8150/8GB
1p/1090T/4GB - Location: neither here nor there
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
I don't know why they should be removed. Clearly they do the work and should be counted.Grandpa_01 wrote:I am pretty sure you can remove PDC and Anonymous from the stats and be fairly close. But judging by the amount of WU's PDC has returned and the amount of points received They are doing a Bigadv WU with time frames of 30min 11sec on Avg for an avg of 60711 points.mdk777 wrote:How about official record:
These 645 million points were all recorded on muti-socket -bigadv machines.
http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... =&u=460688
For I7 to generate 80% of the work done, they would have had to generate what? 3.2 billion additional points.
Still, I would be interested in seeing the official break-down also.
This isn't like a survey that can be skewed to read what outcome that the taker wants.
iustus quia...
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
I'm not following you. PDC was the donor that originated the -bigadv WU.I am pretty sure you can remove PDC and Anonymous from the stats and be fairly close.
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=12058&p=117859&hilit=pdc#p117860
The question of the OP is how much of the WU of -bigadv were done by I7 verse other 2 and 4 socket machines.
excluding PDC would be pointless.
It would be like asking what percentage of the total fund someone donated to the Melinda Gates foundation;( excluding Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.)
Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:47 pm
- Hardware configuration: Rig: Asus Rampage III Extreme, i7 990X @ 4.6GHz, Kingston HyperX 6GB 2000MHz @ 7-7-7-20-1T, Gigabyte GTX580 1.5GB @ 1000/2000/4800
Sys: W7x64, GeForce 197.75, SMP2 6.29 fahcore_a2 v2.10 / fahcore_a3 v2.21, SMP2 6.30 fahcore_a3 v2.22, GPU2 6.23 fahcore_11 v1.31 / fahcore_14 v1.26, GPU3 6.30r1 fahcore_15 v2.09 - Location: Belgrade,Serbia
- Contact:
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
645M points is 160 people and me (making 161) working 19 weeks (less then 5 months) on -bigadv, if you take 60k points per WU. It's easily done.mdk777 wrote:How about official record:
These 645 million points were all recorded on muti-socket -bigadv machines.
http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... =&u=460688
For I7 to generate 80% of the work done, they would have had to generate what? 3.2 billion additional points.
Still, I would be interested in seeing the official break-down also.
80% is around 2.6M not 3.2M (it is 100%), making it 644 people folding in the same time span, or 161 working year and a half. Is it that hard?
I am too interested in official stats. My question in the OP was intended for officials.
About PDC, no need to remove them from the stats in question. My rig is averaging more then 60711, and my last WU was around 66400 points, and I'm financing it all alone.
Rig: Rampage IV Extreme, i7-3930K @ 5GHz, AData 4x2GB @ 2400MHz 9-11-9-27-1T, GTX680 Lightning @ 1200/6000
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:45 pm
- Hardware configuration: 4p/4 MC ES @ 3.0GHz/32GB
4p/4x6128 @ 2.47GHz/32GB
2p/2 IL ES @ 2.7GHz/16GB
1p/8150/8GB
1p/1090T/4GB - Location: neither here nor there
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
Don you now that starting a thread like this is going to bring in people with different opinions than yours. If you wanted the info from PG than you should have sent one them a PM for it, not asked the question in open forum. It maybe some super secret info they don’t what out in the wild.
You can go back and reread my first response to your question. Bruce has said that the client can’t tell the difference. If the client can tell the difference then there is now reason for an x6 not to fold bigadv unless PG doesn’t want them to and right now they don't or ever will
You've been running -bigadv since February? That's great and thank you for your contribution to F@H!
I've been running them since November...well until last month when the LINUX client crashed. All bought and paid for by yours truly too
You can go back and reread my first response to your question. Bruce has said that the client can’t tell the difference. If the client can tell the difference then there is now reason for an x6 not to fold bigadv unless PG doesn’t want them to and right now they don't or ever will
You've been running -bigadv since February? That's great and thank you for your contribution to F@H!
I've been running them since November...well until last month when the LINUX client crashed. All bought and paid for by yours truly too
iustus quia...
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:34 am
Re: 4 cores / 8 threads significance in -bigadv folding
I guess yall should throw in all my bigadv rigs I never posted to this board?