Could it be the Primaboinca's linux app is a lot slower than the windows app?Originally Posted by Beerdrinker
Could it be the Primaboinca's linux app is a lot slower than the windows app?
Spring 2008 Race:
(1st Place)
The numbers are in. http://www.primaboinca.com/results.p...ames=0&state=3
That's my own machine. 86400 seconds per day / Primaboinca average WU time of 7042.33 seconds * 200 credits per WU * 8 threads = 19,629 credits per day. So, I still do better on Dirt, PG PPS Sieve, and Collatz making Primaboinca #4, at least for 64-bit operating systems that is.
19K is still really good compared to most other BOINC projects, but I'll take the extra 20% PG and Collatz award. Sure wish DiRT would come back though....
Last edited by Slicker; 01-19-12 at 09:42 AM.
Well. The one you link to is running Prima 7.06 app....I am running Prima 7.05 app - not sure what the diff. is though
Proud member of SETI.USA since 28īth December 2005.
Joined old MB Dec. 28th 2005 - 5837 posts
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 donīt get it. I got a sparetimer with LGA 775 9550 CPU....Itīs completing Prima WUīs under 6xxx seconds.....Itīs 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
Proud member of SETI.USA since 28īth December 2005.
Joined old MB Dec. 28th 2005 - 5837 posts
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).
I knew that Slicker...I just find it kinda interesting that you only get 7K on 4 more cores. (are those Virtual cores?)
Proud member of SETI.USA since 28īth December 2005.
Joined old MB Dec. 28th 2005 - 5837 posts
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote