Prima. Running Stable Again. Second Best Credits for CPU

[Beerdrinker]

7.06 is the current Linux version. 7.05 is the current Windows version. My most recent post showed my Windows maching running 7.05 and it was even slower than the Linux version.

I don´t get it. I got a sparetimer with LGA 775 9550 CPU....It´s completing Prima WU´s under 6xxx seconds.....It´s faster than a I7?

Eksamples:

117925 100308 16 Jan 2012 19:11:06 UTC 18 Jan 2012 18:36:13 UTC Completed and validated 5,636.11 5,557.04 200.00 primaboinca v7.05
117924 100307 16 Jan 2012 19:11:06 UTC 18 Jan 2012 18:36:13 UTC Completed and validated 5,672.79 5,591.19 200.00 primaboinca v7.05
117923 100306 16 Jan 2012 19:11:06 UTC 18 Jan 2012 19:48:30 UTC Completed and validated 5,687.91 5,578.94 200.00 primaboinca v7.05
117922 100305 16 Jan 2012 19:11:06 UTC 18 Jan 2012 19:48:30 UTC Completed and validated 5,690.95 5,621.17 200.00 primaboinca v7.05

[denim]

Maybe the two of us should make a decent run at Prima.? We are only small timers...Let´s have some fun!!

I was going to participate in the WCG efforts for a bit.

[Mike029]

Fixed title. Thanks Slicker

[Slicker]

I don´t get it. I got a sparetimer with LGA 775 9550 CPU....It´s completing Prima WU´s under 6xxx seconds.....It´s faster than a I7?

Eksamples:

117925 100308 16 Jan 2012 19:11:06 UTC 18 Jan 2012 18:36:13 UTC Completed and validated 5,636.11 5,557.04 200.00 primaboinca v7.05
117924 100307 16 Jan 2012 19:11:06 UTC 18 Jan 2012 18:36:13 UTC Completed and validated 5,672.79 5,591.19 200.00 primaboinca v7.05
117923 100306 16 Jan 2012 19:11:06 UTC 18 Jan 2012 19:48:30 UTC Completed and validated 5,687.91 5,578.94 200.00 primaboinca v7.05
117922 100305 16 Jan 2012 19:11:06 UTC 18 Jan 2012 19:48:30 UTC Completed and validated 5,690.95 5,621.17 200.00 primaboinca v7.05

Apples to Oranges. You run 4 WUs at a time. The i7 950 runs 8 WUs at a time. While each WU finishes faster on the Q9550, the i7 950 runs twice as many at a time. Since it doesn't take twice as long to finish them, the i7 will get more credit per day (e.g. about 12K/day for your Q9550 vs. 19K/day for the i7 950).

[Beerdrinker]

I knew that Slicker...I just find it kinda interesting that you only get 7K on 4 more cores. (are those Virtual cores?)

[Slicker]

I knew that Slicker...I just find it kinda interesting that you only get 7K on 4 more cores. (are those Virtual cores?)

The Q9550 runs at 2.83 Ghz. The i7 950 runs at 3.07 Ghz. But, when the i7 uses hyperthreading, each thread only gets 1/2 of a core, so each WU runs at 1.535Ghz which is considerable less than 2.83 Ghz on the Q9550 and why it takes 7K seconds on the i7 versus 5.6K seconds on the Q9550. While I haven't tried it, I would assume that if I turned off hyperthreading, it would finish a WU in about 3.5K seconds.

[Fire$torm]

The Q9550 runs at 2.83 Ghz. The i7 950 runs at 3.07 Ghz. But, when the i7 uses hyperthreading, each thread only gets 1/2 of a core, so each WU runs at 1.535Ghz which is considerable less than 2.83 Ghz on the Q9550 and why it takes 7K seconds on the i7 versus 5.6K seconds on the Q9550. While I haven't tried it, I would assume that if I turned off hyperthreading, it would finish a WU in about 3.5K seconds.

But if I recall correctly, that 3.5K will only be realized if the app is very efficient. That is why hyperthreading works, because most Windows apps are very inefficient. Intel is just taking advantage of sloppy code.