I don't see a problem with cuda even if it is overclaiming credit. The initial idea of this thread was to promote MB by giving more credit to it (if i understood right) and this problem is because of higher RAC of opt AP and therefore AP is more attractive.

Another problem could be the scheduler, that seems to prefer sending AP over MB. I don't exactly know, as i switched to AP in the early days where nobody liked AP.

However, people with self-motivated interests always want to see more rather than less, so they always try to convince everyone that more is needed get garner more interest and participation (and it would, but at the detriment of fairness).

Install boinc ver. 6.6.28 and note the benchmark numbers.Then install ver. 6.4.7 and take a look at the numbers.

---

SETI Credits + 2 dollars = 1 cup of coffee

---

However, people with self-motivated interests always want to see more rather than less, so they always try to convince everyone that more is needed get garner more interest and participation (and it would, but at the detriment of fairness).

Install boinc ver. 6.6.28 and note the benchmark numbers.Then install ver. 6.4.7 and take a look at the numbers.

Not sure i follow.
AFAIK the benchmarks have nothing to do with claimed credit. They're used to help determine cache size & deadlines.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Therefore the answer is to balance things out, and since they are supposed to be conforming to the standard "Cobblestone", they should be ajdusted toward that standard (in this case, downward). However, people with self-motivated interests always want to see more rather than less, so they always try to convince everyone that more is needed get garner more interest and participation (and it would, but at the detriment of fairness).

Again......it is NOT the opti apps that create the difference.......any more than faster rigs create the difference.

You're right, and that's also not the point I'm making.

The 'go faster' apps do not modify the credits per unit of work done. Any more than the Cuda apps do.......

Agreed.

And yes, I and the kitties do have a self-motivated interest, as voiced in my first post in this thread.

...and if those self-motivated reasons are not fair and balanced or inline with previous standards, then there's no logical reason to go forward with the self-motivated choices.

"It's the science that got us here........It's the credits that keep us going....faster and faster and faster..."

Actually, I can make a sound argument that those who have been here for so long and have spent all their time and energy in creating accounts with high credits and RAC can scare nwecomers away who might be just as competitive. They would have to build a farm exponentially more powerful than your own just to catch up or surpase you (collectively, not personally). Reality dictates that this just isn't feasible in many cases, and that could potentially scare some competitive people away. You could always say, "tough breaks", but its still counter-intuitive to do things this way.

Not that I'm suggesting getting rid of credits altogether. Just making a counter-argument to show a different perspective on things.

---

so the stock AP RAC is higher than stock MB RAC on the same PC?

Yep.

in this case MB credit has to be increased or AP lowered

AP lowered so that it is on par with what a Cobblestone is supposed to be.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

so the stock AP RAC is higher than stock MB RAC on the same PC?

No, not RAC. RAC is a time measurement and AP takes longer to do on stock apps, and because RAC is a decaying average based over a set period of time, it can give the appearance that AP pays less, which is why some people around here have it stuck in their heads that AP doesn't pay well.

in this case MB credit has to be increased or AP lowered

Correct. And since the project is supposed to remain inline with the previously set standard for a Cobblestone, and that standard happens to be lower than what AP pays, while MB is pretty close (or at least closer than AP is), then the logical choice is to lower AP to the right credit multiplier.

---

I guess us little, vocal, peons in the system have little impact.

So I suppose our whining here does little.........but I think Eric does read the forums.......

Not true. When the "little, vocal peons" show logic and reasoning beyond self-interest, I think the project listens quite well. Richard Haselgrove (I spelled it right this time, Richard! :) ) has done a great job of making a difference, even if he feels frustrated at times. Same with countless others.

---

However, people with self-motivated interests always want to see more rather than less, so they always try to convince everyone that more is needed get garner more interest and participation (and it would, but at the detriment of fairness).

Install boinc ver. 6.6.28 and note the benchmark numbers.Then install ver. 6.4.7 and take a look at the numbers.

As one response said to you already, the benchmark numbers have nothing to do with claimed or granted credit. They used to, but not since BOINC v4.19 (I think).

---

There has been a call to lock this thread, so I am complying with the OP's request.

---