Seti credit vs Einstein Credit

http://boincstats.com/en/stats/-1/cpcs Shows the comparisons.

The comparison chart at http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php gives more detail and is better documented. It also says that SETI gives ten times more credit than Einstein, which I'm certain is false.

I think the comparison figures for both projects are distorted by the use of GPUs at both projects: the comparison charts are based on CPU time only. Overall, I think the administrators at both projects strive conscientiously to honour the original credit definition as closely as possible: anyone wishing to choose between them should run their own tests on their own hardware. Or, preferably, choose on the basis of the value of the science on their own personal scale.

What I find interesting is in looking at the two charts, the credit difference between Seti and SetiBeta. Same work units. Makes me think that the measuring stick is broken.

It should not matter who gives the most credit. It should be what project do you really want to crunch. For me Its Seti@Home. The other two I do like, but they are there for back up when I cant crunch S@H.
____________

What I find interesting is in looking at the two charts, the credit difference between Seti and SetiBeta. Same work units. Makes me think that the measuring stick is broken.

<workunit_header>
<name>08ja11ab.19544.13736.140733193388041.14.162</name>
Snip
<analysis_cfg>
<spike_thresh>24</spike_thresh>
<spikes_per_spectrum>1</spikes_per_spectrum>
<autocorr_thresh>17.7999992</autocorr_thresh>
<autocorr_per_spectrum>1</autocorr_per_spectrum>
<autocorr_fftlen>131072</autocorr_fftlen>
<gauss_null_chi_sq_thresh>2.26359248</gauss_null_chi_sq_thresh>
<gauss_chi_sq_thresh>1.41999996</gauss_chi_sq_thresh>
<gauss_power_thresh>3</gauss_power_thresh>
<gauss_peak_power_thresh>3.20000005</gauss_peak_power_thresh>
<gauss_pot_length>64</gauss_pot_length>
<pulse_thresh>20.2139301</pulse_thresh>
<pulse_display_thresh>0.5</pulse_display_thresh>
<pulse_max>40960</pulse_max>
<pulse_min>16</pulse_min>
<pulse_fft_max>8192</pulse_fft_max>
<pulse_pot_length>256</pulse_pot_length>
<triplet_thresh>9.21395588</triplet_thresh>
<triplet_max>131072</triplet_max>
<triplet_min>16</triplet_min>
<triplet_pot_length>256</triplet_pot_length>
<pot_overlap_factor>0.5</pot_overlap_factor>
<pot_t_offset>1</pot_t_offset>
<pot_min_slew>0.00209999993</pot_min_slew>
<pot_max_slew>0.0104999999</pot_max_slew>
<chirp_resolution>0.1665</chirp_resolution>
<analysis_fft_lengths>262136</analysis_fft_lengths>
<bsmooth_boxcar_length>8192</bsmooth_boxcar_length>
<bsmooth_chunk_size>32768</bsmooth_chunk_size>
<chirps>
<chirp_parameter_t>
<chirp_limit>30</chirp_limit>
<fft_len_flags>262136</fft_len_flags>
</chirp_parameter_t>
<chirp_parameter_t>
<chirp_limit>100</chirp_limit>
<fft_len_flags>65528</fft_len_flags>
</chirp_parameter_t>
</chirps>
<pulse_beams>1</pulse_beams>
<max_signals>30</max_signals>
<max_spikes>8</max_spikes>
<max_autocorr>8</max_autocorr>
<max_gaussians>0</max_gaussians>
<max_pulses>0</max_pulses>
<max_triplets>0</max_triplets>
<keyuniq>-1325094</keyuniq>
<credit_rate>2.8499999</credit_rate>
</analysis_cfg>
<sb_id>0</sb_id>
<iq_modified>0</iq_modified>
</group_info>
<subband_desc>
<number>162</number>
<center>1419086303.7109</center>
<base>1419082031.25</base>
<sample_rate>9765.625</sample_rate>
</subband_desc>
<sb_id>0</sb_id>
</workunit_header>

Compared to S@H, Einstein has very short deadlines for the WUs, so your computer "is forced" to run Einstein with high priority.

The reason I stopped Einstein, I am in in for the science not being forced to crunch one project over another.

Einstein forces no such thing: I don't think I've ever seen an Einstein task run in high priority.

What forces high priority is a user choice of cache settings which don't play 'nice' with project deadlines - we used to see that a lot when SETI had 7-day deadlines for shorties (before the task durations were doubled by increasing the sensitivity of the search). The rule of thumb when running more than one project is that your chosen cache size should be no more than [shortest deadline of any task on any of the projects] / [number of separate projects running].

So, SETI + Einstein: lowest deadline is 14 days at either project (actually, slightly shorter at SETI) - don't cache more than 7 days, and make sure you choose the right value pair (0,7 for BOINC v6, 7,0 for BOINC v7). That will calm things down a lot, though I don't personally ever run more than a 2 day cache.

Compared to S@H, Einstein has very short deadlines for the WUs, so your computer "is forced" to run Einstein with high priority.

The reason I stopped Einstein, I am in in for the science not being forced to crunch one project over another.

Einstein forces no such thing: I don't think I've ever seen an Einstein task run in high priority.

What forces high priority is a user choice of cache settings which don't play 'nice' with project deadlines - we used to see that a lot when SETI had 7-day deadlines for shorties (before the task durations were doubled by increasing the sensitivity of the search). The rule of thumb when running more than one project is that your chosen cache size should be no more than [shortest deadline of any task on any of the projects] / [number of separate projects running].

So, SETI + Einstein: lowest deadline is 14 days at either project (actually, slightly shorter at SETI) - don't cache more than 7 days, and make sure you choose the right value pair (0,7 for BOINC v6, 7,0 for BOINC v7). That will calm things down a lot, though I don't personally ever run more than a 2 day cache.

I must have had my cache set wrong then because I had never seen a task run at high priority till I joined Einstein, if I remember all the GPU tasks had very short deadlines and forced SETI to take a back seat till they had all cleared, I haven't touched my cache setting since I set them for Boinc 7.

I would say Einstein offers SLIGHTLY more credits than SETI. Not massively more.

If you just want big numbers to impress your friends with (and if so seriously reconsider your social circle) then try collatz. Honestly I feel I shed 50 IQ points while I crunched it. But my RAC was HUGE.

I would say Einstein offers SLIGHTLY more credits than SETI. Not massively more.

If you just want big numbers to impress your friends with (and if so seriously reconsider your social circle) then try collatz. Honestly I feel I shed 50 IQ points while I crunched it. But my RAC was HUGE.

Ou go to GPUGRID, they "pay" 115k for a single WU! Almos 10x the SETI amount!

I would say Einstein offers SLIGHTLY more credits than SETI. Not massively more.

If you just want big numbers to impress your friends with (and if so seriously reconsider your social circle) then try collatz. Honestly I feel I shed 50 IQ points while I crunched it. But my RAC was HUGE.

Ou go to GPUGRID, they "pay" 115k for a single WU! Almos 10x the SETI amount!

But at GPUGrid, it heavily depends on the GPU you use, a FERMI or KEPPLER gives
far more credit, compaired to the 8000/900 & 200 NVidia series.

And for Collatz C. similar, Single Precision AMD/ATI GPUs do very well, especially 5770; 5870 (D.P.).

Credit is just a way to compare the performance of diferent hosts beetween the same project, compare one project with the other ussing the credit is a compleate waste of time.