How much total processing power do you have?

Message boards : Number crunching : How much total processing power do you have?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
Profile Sutehk
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 99
Posts: 42
Credit: 1,443,674
RAC: 0
United States
Message 425803 - Posted: 24 Sep 2006, 21:02:43 UTC

OzzFan, I don't know if it will work for your accross town comps, but boincview will show you the GFlops on each computer that it monitors. I have a small network that I have my computers attached to, and can administer boinc from my main machine using this program.
ID: 425803 · Report as offensive
Profile Bruno G. Olsen & ESEA @ greenholt
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 875
Credit: 4,386,984
RAC: 0
Denmark
Message 425807 - Posted: 24 Sep 2006, 21:17:33 UTC - in response to Message 425789.  

Would everyone agree upon GFLOPS per second? Would that be more fair?


I believe it would be more fair.

If so, how would one go about finding out their GFLOPS in a relatively easy way?


That would be stats sites that calculate GFlops ;) My own MiniStats currently calculate an avarage over a 122 day period (I'll add 7, 30 and 60 day periods later), but those stats are primarily for members of the ESEA team. It will be a while yet before my FullStats are ready.

If I remember correctly the boinc synergy stats also calculate GFlops, but I don't know what period of time they do an avarage over - and they probably calculate by RAC whereas I use daily credit. But try finding yourself at the boinc synergy stats ;)


ID: 425807 · Report as offensive
Profile Bruno G. Olsen & ESEA @ greenholt
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 875
Credit: 4,386,984
RAC: 0
Denmark
Message 425808 - Posted: 24 Sep 2006, 21:29:43 UTC - in response to Message 425807.  

If I remember correctly the boinc synergy stats also calculate GFlops, but I don't know what period of time they do an avarage over - and they probably calculate by RAC whereas I use daily credit. But try finding yourself at the boinc synergy stats ;)



Oops, sorry, I didn't remember correctly - just checked

ID: 425808 · Report as offensive
Odysseus
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 99
Posts: 1808
Credit: 6,701,347
RAC: 6
Canada
Message 425897 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 0:22:45 UTC - in response to Message 425789.  

Would everyone agree upon GFLOPS per second? Would that be more fair? If so, how would one go about finding out their GFLOPS in a relatively easy way?

How about totalling one’s BOINC Whetstone benchmarks, having made sure BOINC had a ‘blank cheque’ to run them without interference from higher-priority processes?

ID: 425897 · Report as offensive
fpiaw

Send message
Joined: 29 Dec 99
Posts: 236
Credit: 1,203,409
RAC: 0
United States
Message 425995 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 2:26:04 UTC

I had only one computer working seti before last month. But since then I've added a ton of computers. I have 32ghz on seti now. Go Team VL - that would be
me!

Chris Moats
ID: 425995 · Report as offensive
Profile StokeyBob
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Aug 03
Posts: 848
Credit: 2,218,691
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426005 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 2:49:51 UTC

17.17
ID: 426005 · Report as offensive
Profile The Gas Giant
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 01
Posts: 1904
Credit: 2,646,654
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 426052 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 4:24:06 UTC

9.02GHz in 3 * P4's. Can I do what some people do on ebay and increase my GHz since 2 of the P4's are HT machines and get approx 40% more than a single threaded machine? If so, then I have about 11.75GHz P4 processing power, but the output is less than the recent dual cores GHz for GHz.

Live long and BOINC!

Paul
(S@H1 8888)
And proud of it!
ID: 426052 · Report as offensive
Profile Everette Dobbins

Send message
Joined: 13 Jan 00
Posts: 291
Credit: 22,594,655
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426054 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 4:55:59 UTC - in response to Message 425586.  

Just for fun. Rules:

1) HT and Dual Core can be counted twice (for example a 3.8GHz HT system can be counted as 7.6GHz total). Dual core with HT can be counted four times (the previous example would total 15.2GHz). Dual CPU quad core can be counted eight times... etc. If HT is disabled, it cannot be counted twice.

2) Actual clock speeds only (for example an Athlon XP 2600+ actually runs at 1.9GHz).*

3) Systems must be online and currently crunching (even if you have just turned them on!).

4) Systems must be yours (may be part of a team, but not total team power).

5) Try to get it to the nearest megahertz if you can (such as 254.986GHz would be 254 Giga 986 Megahertz), or simply round to the nearest gigahertz if you have a lot of systems (such as rounding the above number to 255GHz).

6) Since this is the SETI forum, limit your total processing power to those you have running SETI (can be running other projects too, but they must be running SETI as well).


* The reason for actual clock numbers is for simplicity, as the architectural differences between an Athlon, Athlon XP or Athlon 64 processor are obviously all different (and more efficient with each generation), even when compared to Intel's chips, it's just easier to count raw processing power.


This thread is not meant to make people feel bad about how much they are contributing, but to simply to have fun and find out about how much total processing power is out there.


To start, I am running a total of 34.996GHz of power.

>
>
87.56 GHz
ID: 426054 · Report as offensive
Profile Diego -=Mav3rik=-
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Jun 99
Posts: 333
Credit: 3,587,148
RAC: 0
Message 426057 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 5:00:21 UTC - in response to Message 425586.  

Hm, I don't want to rain on this parade, but as far as I know computing -or processing- power does not depend solely or directly on the CPU frequency.

For example a CPU clocked at 1 Ghz can calculate more gflops than another clocked at 2 Ghz, depending mostly on their hardware architecture.

Regards.
/Mav

We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean.
We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.

(Carl Sagan)
ID: 426057 · Report as offensive
Profile Everette Dobbins

Send message
Joined: 13 Jan 00
Posts: 291
Credit: 22,594,655
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426058 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 5:04:29 UTC - in response to Message 426057.  

Hm, I don't want to rain on this parade, but as far as I know computing -or processing- power does not depend solely or directly on the CPU frequency.

For example a CPU clocked at 1 Ghz can calculate more gflops than another clocked at 2 Ghz, depending mostly on their hardware architecture.

Regards.

>
>
This is for fun.
ID: 426058 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 426081 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 8:07:46 UTC

Not enough!!
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 426081 · Report as offensive
Profile Nightlord
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Oct 01
Posts: 117
Credit: 1,316,241
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 426096 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 10:07:04 UTC

If my arithmetic is right..... 77.1GHz



ID: 426096 · Report as offensive
Profile Diego -=Mav3rik=-
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Jun 99
Posts: 333
Credit: 3,587,148
RAC: 0
Message 426097 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 10:08:17 UTC - in response to Message 426058.  

Hm, I don't want to rain on this parade, but as far as I know computing -or processing- power does not depend solely or directly on the CPU frequency.

For example a CPU clocked at 1 Ghz can calculate more gflops than another clocked at 2 Ghz, depending mostly on their hardware architecture.

Regards.

>
>
This is for fun.


Yeah, this thread is a riot. ;)

/Mav

We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean.
We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.

(Carl Sagan)
ID: 426097 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 426104 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 10:46:06 UTC - in response to Message 426057.  
Last modified: 25 Sep 2006, 10:46:37 UTC

Hm, I don't want to rain on this parade, but as far as I know computing -or processing- power does not depend solely or directly on the CPU frequency.

For example a CPU clocked at 1 Ghz can calculate more gflops than another clocked at 2 Ghz, depending mostly on their hardware architecture.

Regards.


I am very well aware of that. This complaint has already been lodged previously. As I said in my first post, this was just supposed to be fun, just a numbers game. Not meant to make anyone mad because they don't "add up" or make Core 2 owners feel like they're not contributing as much, or even to start a discussion over hardware architecture. I did it just to see how many 'GHz' was being contributed. I fully understand that this is in no way scientific or even a real measure for true computing power.


I suppose this is what I get for trying to have fun with a bunch of fellow geeks... they get overly technical and every one of them have to let you know something that you already know, then imply that you're stupid (or need a life, as per WinterKnight), then belittle your fun, such as your own quote:

Yeah, this thread is a riot. ;)


If you haven't read the entire post, and haven't seen that I've already acknowledged the uselessness of sheer "GHz" numbers, nor have you seen that I've shown to be of very technical in nature in other posts, therefore showing that I already fully possess the knowledge of the very complaint you're bringing up, why would you go ahead and ruin my fun anyway? If you can't have fun, even if it doesn't fit your description of fun, why would you crash it anyway?
ID: 426104 · Report as offensive
Profile mr.kjellen
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jan 01
Posts: 195
Credit: 71,324,196
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 426133 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 12:21:39 UTC

59.882 GHz
ID: 426133 · Report as offensive
Kim Vater
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 27 May 99
Posts: 227
Credit: 22,743,307
RAC: 0
Norway
Message 426134 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 12:25:23 UTC - in response to Message 426104.  
Last modified: 25 Sep 2006, 12:26:24 UTC


If you can't have fun, even if it doesn't fit your description of fun, why would you crash it anyway?


@OzzFan
A good question! :thumbup:

Some of the 'cheerleaders' might find it difficult to answer ;-)

Kiva

Greetings from Norway

Crunch3er & AK-V8 Inside
ID: 426134 · Report as offensive
Profile mikey
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Dec 99
Posts: 4215
Credit: 3,474,603
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426369 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 22:44:57 UTC

60.63 total ghz

ID: 426369 · Report as offensive
Alinator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 05
Posts: 4178
Credit: 4,647,982
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426412 - Posted: 25 Sep 2006, 23:35:02 UTC - in response to Message 426104.  
Last modified: 25 Sep 2006, 23:36:16 UTC

Hm, I don't want to rain on this parade, but as far as I know computing -or processing- power does not depend solely or directly on the CPU frequency.

For example a CPU clocked at 1 Ghz can calculate more gflops than another clocked at 2 Ghz, depending mostly on their hardware architecture.

Regards.


I am very well aware of that. This complaint has already been lodged previously. As I said in my first post, this was just supposed to be fun, just a numbers game. Not meant to make anyone mad because they don't "add up" or make Core 2 owners feel like they're not contributing as much, or even to start a discussion over hardware architecture. I did it just to see how many 'GHz' was being contributed. I fully understand that this is in no way scientific or even a real measure for true computing power.


I suppose this is what I get for trying to have fun with a bunch of fellow geeks... they get overly technical and every one of them have to let you know something that you already know, then imply that you're stupid (or need a life, as per WinterKnight), then belittle your fun, such as your own quote:

Yeah, this thread is a riot. ;)


If you haven't read the entire post, and haven't seen that I've already acknowledged the uselessness of sheer "GHz" numbers, nor have you seen that I've shown to be of very technical in nature in other posts, therefore showing that I already fully possess the knowledge of the very complaint you're bringing up, why would you go ahead and ruin my fun anyway? If you can't have fun, even if it doesn't fit your description of fun, why would you crash it anyway?


LOL, OK here's the definitive answer/response:

Not nearly enough GHz to satify me. :-)

Alinator
ID: 426412 · Report as offensive
Profile Diego -=Mav3rik=-
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Jun 99
Posts: 333
Credit: 3,587,148
RAC: 0
Message 426475 - Posted: 26 Sep 2006, 2:35:52 UTC - in response to Message 426104.  

Ozzfan said:
I suppose this is what I get for trying to have fun with a bunch of fellow geeks... they get overly technical and every one of them have to let you know something that you already know, then imply that you're stupid (or need a life, as per WinterKnight)

Oh come on, don't be so touchy.
It was never my intention to crash your fun or offend you.
I was merely stating a fact that not everybody knows.

Regards.
/Mav

We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean.
We are ready at last to set sail for the stars.

(Carl Sagan)
ID: 426475 · Report as offensive
Profile Everette Dobbins

Send message
Joined: 13 Jan 00
Posts: 291
Credit: 22,594,655
RAC: 0
United States
Message 426483 - Posted: 26 Sep 2006, 3:22:52 UTC - in response to Message 426475.  

Ozzfan said:
I suppose this is what I get for trying to have fun with a bunch of fellow geeks... they get overly technical and every one of them have to let you know something that you already know, then imply that you're stupid (or need a life, as per WinterKnight)

Oh come on, don't be so touchy.
It was never my intention to crash your fun or offend you.
I was merely stating a fact that not everybody knows.

Regards.

Please hindsight is 20/20 Rainman.
ID: 426483 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Number crunching : How much total processing power do you have?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.