Ah -- OK -- the timings for an X2 4200 would be about the same as a single core XP2000 -- so I was a bit off there but in the neighborhood.

Athlon 64 X2 4200

---

QX9650 -- show off <smile>. The fastest CPU I have is an AMD 9850 running at 2800MHz. But I am not running SETI on it for the reasons I noted earlier on.

Hi, there appears to be a huge difference between the used CPU and probably the whole system compaired to crunching times, I use a QX9650 @ 3434MHz, X38 chipset, a AP WU takes about 24 hours, that gives about 30cr/hour. Credit claim was 750, got 720.
I wander, what causes this huge difference in crunching time, it's NOT FLOPs only or RAM, looks like these WU's are less memory dependent then MB Units, but I also doubt that?
Must be the code used?
Or the L2 cache (12MByte)?
Maybe my CPU has twice the FLOPs then the Athlon 64 X2 4200, per core. Or a bit more. ;) Beats me, so far.
Oh, I don't mind, crunching them, someone(s) got to do them, anyway ;)

---

Hi, NOT a 'show off' though they are great 'workers/crunchers'. ;)
But more a question why these CPU's are so much faster only on AP WU's and NOT, that much on Multi-Beam WU's.
Haven't tried it on CPDN, yet . . .
I bought this CPU, with a 90% discount, it has been used one month in a test-system and I've seen their reports and have a 'normal' garantee.

---

Well, I tend to max out at less than $200 for a CPU -- so for me, that $1K Intel CPU is a bit over the top (your business rationale mileage may differ of course). (smile>.

As to the AP handling -- somewhere in the bowels of the AP code design there lurks Groves evil twin and he is wreaking havoc on the AMD community using SETI AstroPulse as a weapon. Fortunately (at least thru the coming election) we live in a relatively free choice country -- so for me, I make the choice and vote not to run SETI AP on AMD processors.

Hi, NOT a 'show off' though they are great 'workers/crunchers'. ;)
But more a question why these CPU's are so much faster only on AP WU's and NOT, that much on Multi-Beam WU's.
Haven't tried it on CPDN, yet . . .
I bought this CPU, with a 90% discount, it has been used one month in a test-system and I've seen their reports and have a 'normal' garantee.

---

Not sure if I am posting in correct thread and sorry if I am hi-jacking but I noticed that my claimed credit for an astropulse was uploaded on 28 Aug 08 for 715 credits but is still in pending stage for almost 2 weeks.

Stuff I have uploaded has been granted AFTER I have submitted the astropulse WU. Is there a problem, I am new to this and watch my credits like a hawk to see how good I am doing.

Thanks for any responses or help!

fraynes

Fraynes - nothing to worry about on your end. Each wu is sent out to 2 different computers for processing. If they validate, then you'll get your credit. Looks like your wingmen has a due date of Thursday this week. If for some reason they don't respond in time, then the unit will be sent out to a 3rd machine. You can click the link in my sig and look up pending credit for a more detailed explanation.

---

Wendy



Click Here for BOINC FAQ Service

Not sure if I am posting in correct thread and sorry if I am hi-jacking but I noticed that my claimed credit for an astropulse was uploaded on 28 Aug 08 for 715 credits but is still in pending stage for almost 2 weeks.

Stuff I have uploaded has been granted AFTER I have submitted the astropulse WU. Is there a problem, I am new to this and watch my credits like a hawk to see how good I am doing.

Each work unit is sent to at least two different computers to verify results. You are waiting for the other computer to complete the same work unit.

Since the other computer appears to be a 667MHz Pentium or Celeron, it probably won't finish the work unit before the deadline expires (only two days left). That means it will be sent to a different computer for verification. Once it's finally verified, you'll get credit for it.

Edit: Scooped! Oh well...

I'm waiting on results for four Astropulse units myself (nine days, 18 days, 20 days, and 22 days left until their deadlines). Sucks, don't it?

---

Cruiser
Gateway GT5692 L-f-S Edition
-Phenom X4 9650 CPU
-4GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM
-500GB SATA HD
-Vista x64 SP1
-BOINC 6.2.19 32-bit client
-SSE3 optimized 32-bit apps

Update:

Still waiting for wingmen on four Astropulse units.

Finished a fifth unit, and got credit for it immediately as wingman was waiting for me. My RAC jumped up 150+ points to over 750.

Crunching a sixth unit with about 18 hours to go, which I'll get credit for right away - wingman is waiting for me again.

Oh well ... even if I have to wait for a few weeks to get credit, I'm still glad I do Astropulse units.

Another item - something weird: Destroyer is a faster cruncher (shaving 15 minutes off of shorties and 30 minutes or more off of 'average' Multibeam units) than Cruiser, but has lower CPU efficiency (96.8445% versus 98.4287% - that's 1.5842% lower). Maybe it's because Destroyer has only been crunching for a few days or something...

---

Cruiser
Gateway GT5692 L-f-S Edition
-Phenom X4 9650 CPU
-4GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM
-500GB SATA HD
-Vista x64 SP1
-BOINC 6.2.19 32-bit client
-SSE3 optimized 32-bit apps

I got a message that my machine (Macbook pro) can't do AP units. No great loss to me, but why not? It is an Intel dual processor. Wonder of my big box a MacPro is likewise quarantined?

Interesting is that the book uses about 40 watts doing two units at a time and the Pro uses 220 for 4 units. (I didn't wait for the dual quad machine). So the processor is a bit slower and uses a lot fewer watt hours.

My killerwatt says both machines have a power factor almost 1.0 (.98-.99). If you know what the PF means (I do) then the efficiency of converting energy to useful power is higher than with low PF.

duke

I got a message that my machine (Macbook pro) can't do AP units. No great loss to me, but why not? It is an Intel dual processor. Wonder of my big box a MacPro is likewise quarantined?

Interesting is that the book uses about 40 watts doing two units at a time and the Pro uses 220 for 4 units. (I didn't wait for the dual quad machine). So the processor is a bit slower and uses a lot fewer watt hours.

The SETI applications page explains the reason: they haven't written a version for the Apple (Darwin) operating system - yet.

If you want to give AP a try, have a look at Dotsch's Astropulse binaries for other platforms thread.

Another item - something weird: Destroyer is a faster cruncher (shaving 15 minutes off of shorties and 30 minutes or more off of 'average' Multibeam units) than Cruiser, but has lower CPU efficiency (96.8445% versus 98.4287% - that's 1.5842% lower). Maybe it's because Destroyer has only been crunching for a few days or something...

CPU efficiency is the fraction of cpu-time to actual wall-clock-time. All "other things" the computer does, like if you're playing games, looking on videos and so on, will decrease the CPU efficiency. Even doing very-light work like surfing the web and reading emails will "steal" some cpu-time from BOINC, and you'll get a lower CPU efficiency.

CPU efficiency is using a decaying average, like most other things in BOINC, but, is using only a 1-day half-life, so will more quickly drop if you're using computer for other things like playing games, but also increase quickly again after stopped playing.

---

"I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might."

My iMac runs around .92/.93 as it also runs iTunes, Mail and I surf the internet.

---