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.

---

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 ;)

---

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

---

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?

---

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

---

17.17

---

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!

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

---

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)

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.

---

Not enough!!

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

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

---

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)

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?

---

59.882 GHz

---

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

60.63 total ghz

---

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

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)

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.

---