Folding Forum

I have an 8 core Xeon Windows 10 server with a Geo Force 1030 graphics card. Unfortunately the system doesn't have (or I haven't figured out how to turn on) hyperthreading in the boot configuration. I am currently running four FaH CPU slots (threads -1) and one GPU slot (threads -1). As I understand things: the four existing CPU slots use, at minimum, one CPU core each; but can use more CPU cores if they need to because i've set the threads to -1 (please correct my ignorance if this is incorrect).

My question is, would I be better off creating four more CPU slots to process more simultanious tasks, or is FaH able to use the four additional uncommitted CPUs within the existing slots for faster results on the existing configuration? Would it be better to assign two CPU cores to each slot? I'm not really sure how FaH handles multi-core systems (or maybe I just missed that part of the documentation).

For CPU slots the fewer, the better. The best setup for your 8-core Xeon if you are doing GPU folding would be a single CPU slot set to use 6 CPU threads and a GPU slot. One CPU thread would be used by the GPU, the remaining one would handle system processes.

I would recommend you set all but one CPU slot to Finish. As each WU on those slots complete and uploads to the server, delete the slot. When there is just one slot edit its CPU thread setting to 6 and save that. The next WU downloaded will be processed using 6 CPU threads.

Welcome to the F@H Forum Brian_S_Wilson,

If you would like us to help you with further optimizations, please post the log file. If you require guidance, here's the topic to review: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=26036

I have a CPU with 8 threads and one GPU and it only runs FAH. The default value for my CPU slot is 7 threads which always gets reduced to 6. That really leaves me with two choices CPU:6 + CPU:1 or CPU:4 + CPU:3. (No, I wouldn't consider CPU:1 + CPU:1 + CPU:1 + CPU:1 + CPU:1 + CPU:1 + CPU:1)

Because of the way the bonus program evaluates scientific value, I choose CPU:4 + CPU:3.

You may find that a single 6 slot is better than a 3+4 pair as far as the science is concerned ... the gpu will use 1 and the free 1 allows system tasks and gpu checkpoints to minimise impact on the 6 ... but the choice is yours

It would be my impression as well. Fah seems to scale better with more thread WUs.
At least, you'll get a higher PPD, with 6 threads, than with 3+4, as most of the PPD is QRB, not actual work done.
3+4 might get you more actual work done (more WUs), but your PPD score would be lower.

Another thing you can do, is add an additional GPU.
The 1030 is a very docile GPU, it won't fold particularly fast.
Depending on your hardware, you should be able to install a GTX 1060 (preferably the 6GB) , as it's older than a 1030; or an equivalent Quadro GPU.

I wouldn't opt for the equivalent Quadro GPU unless you already have it. The Quadro line is priced as a "professional" device whereas the GeForce line is prices as a "gamer" device. The Quadro version features faster FP64 operations. FAH uses almost exclusively FP32 operations with very few FP64 operations, so you're paying more for a feature that you don't need. The other difference is error-correcting-parity memory -- and I don't remember the last time I had a VRAM parity error.

Yeah, the quadro is also more expensive on the second hand market.
If your system recognizes P106 GPUs (mining GPUs without a display out port), it also might be a cheap and good upgrade.

Why is a GTX 1060 being recommend? If you can find them new they are significantly dearer than GTX 1650 and used, as near as matters, the same price as a new GTX 1650.

A new 1650 draws less watts, delivers same or better PPD and costs same?

If you're looking at a new GPU for folding today and have $150 (cost of used 1060) to invest isn't the answer a new 1650?

agent71 wrote:Why is a GTX 1060 being recommend? If you can find them new they are significantly dearer than GTX 1650 and used, as near as matters, the same price as a new GTX 1650.

A new 1650 draws less watts, delivers same or better PPD and costs same?

If you're looking at a new GPU for folding today and have $150 (cost of used 1060) to invest isn't the answer a new 1650?

Because a 1060 is guaranteed to work with older hardware (up to like 6 years or so, my guess?)...
The 1650 is a very new GPU.
If your system can run a 1650, I wouldn't recommend that GPU, because it's just too slow for the money.
Better invest in a 1660 Super. It's slightly more expensive, but it has much higher PPD.

I thought 1650 did about 500K PPD and 1060 about 450K PPD? Yes agree a Super more but dearer and not same price as 1060. Just didn't initially understand the rationale for an old 1060 over new 1650 but I get the point about compatibility.

Thanks