I find Boinc slightly faster but not much, however I was using the CLI for SETI classic...

> Hello Everyone,
>
> This question is really addressed to Panther users. From experience, which of
> the two clients have you found to be faster at crunching data and completing
> WU's? For the past several weeks I have been flip-flopping between the two
> trying to answer this question for myself. I prefer the GUI of Classic, but I
> am beginning to suspect that Boinc may be 3 to 4 times faster. Any other
> observations on this?
>
> I've mainly been using the Classic client due to the upload problems and other
> problems which have plagued Boinc. I am hoping that with the release of 4.13,
> that most of those problems have been resolved, but I don't want to switch
> back to Boinc until I get some confirmations of this . . . and I am referring
> to OSX Boinc, and not Windows Boinc.
>
> Thanks!
>
>

---

-Aardvark

I have a dual 2 gig, and prior to going to Boinc, I was processing, on average, 1 unit in 169 minutes. I have a program called SetiStatus. It captures the time of each unit as it processes. That is 2 hours and 49 minutes.

Using Classic Seti, I'm processing approx 16 units in 24 hours (dual processors).

I have been keeping track of the boinc processed WU. I'm finding that many are processing in 2 hours and 15 minutes, on average.

approx. 20.12% ( if I did this right).

Under Boinc, I'm processing approx 20 units in 24 hours. (dual processors).

So the answer to your question is that Boinc is indeed faster than classic.

Bill

---