Has anyone benchmarked Seti Classic against new improved Boinc Seti? I have 5 computers all chirping away on seti classic and have 1 computer I just setup with Boinc Seti. Hate to say it but Boinc is underwelming so far and overly complicated for just crunching Seti numbers (which is the only project I'm interested in.

But if someone has cold hard numbers showing Boinc Seti processes more WU faster than classic then you have my attention...

-Chet

14,000+ Classic Credits
1,000+ Boinc Credits

---

Chet Laughlin

Are the classic and BOINC WUs comparable?

---

Help and BOINC documentation is available here.

Are the classic and BOINC WUs comparable?

Yep.

For me there was no change in processing times when i went from Classic to BOINC. That was about 12 months and half a dozen client versions ago.
I'm still using BOINC v4.19 & crunching with Seti v4.09.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

When I transferred I found Boinc to be faster. But then with Seti the real key to speed is cache size. Maybe Boinc Seti has a larger file size and is too big for the cache on the PC that you are running it on. My current PC has a 2MB cache but a 1.6GHz chip but runs Seti it speeds equal to a 3.2GHz PC.

---

Are the classic and BOINC WUs comparable?

Yep.

For me there was no change in processing times when i went from Classic to BOINC. That was about 12 months and half a dozen client versions ago.
I'm still using BOINC v4.19 & crunching with Seti v4.09.

Ok, thats worth knowing. I'm watching Boinc 4.43 and Seti 4.09 on a Pent IV 3.0 GHZ machine w/ 512MB RAM w/ WinXP. After 4 days seems to be about 3% slower to use BOINC than SetiClassic. But it could be the machine and 3% isn't a whole lot to worry about. I think I'll measure the new Seti on my old laptop and see how what shows up then. Its an old 450MHZ Celeron w/ 128MB RAM on Win2K. Takes about 20 hours to do a single WU on it with SetiClassic due to the crippled FPU.

---

Chet Laughlin