I put together a program that uses the history files produced by BoincTasks to do some performance analysis. It only works with BoincTasks. There is a description of the program here (Fred created a 3rd party forum for add-ins) and the sources and executables are at github

Here is a sample plot of Elapsed Time for various SETI GPU apps.

I wish it was possible to plot actual credit instead elapsed time. Maybe if the project could download "expected credit" at the time of the upload that value could be used (even if wrong) for a rough approximation of credit performance.

if the project could download "expected credit" at the time of the upload

A BOINC project gives you credit for the computations your computers perform for it. BOINC's unit of credit, the Cobblestone (named after Jeff Cobb of SETI@home), is 1/200 day of CPU time on a reference computer that does 1,000 MFLOPS based on the Whetstone benchmark.
GigaFLOPs = RAC/200
TeraFLOPS = RAC/200,000
(Remember that a 1 GigaFLOP machine, running full time, produces 200 units of credit in 1 day).

C = F * cobblestone_scale

C= Credit
F = wu.fpops_est (estimated FLOPS for the WU)
cobblestone_scale=200/86400e9

The Runtime of a WU is the only valid indicator of performance, but given that different WUs have different run times, the comparison can only be made between runs of a given WU---
If you're really keen you can do that yourself using the definition of a Cobblestone, however due to the way Credit New works, actual Credit for a WU will be nothing even remotely close to the amount of Credit it should get according the Cobblestone definition
---
A BOINC project gives you credit for the computations your computers perform for it. BOINC's unit of credit, the Cobblestone (named after Jeff Cobb of SETI@home), is 1/200 day of CPU time on a reference computer that does 1,000 MFLOPS based on the Whetstone benchmark.
GigaFLOPs = RAC/200
TeraFLOPS = RAC/200,000
(Remember that a 1 GigaFLOP machine, running full time, produces 200 units of credit in 1 day).

C = F * cobblestone_scale

C= Credit
F = wu.fpops_est (estimated FLOPS for the WU)
cobblestone_scale=200/86400e9
-All you need are the Estimated FLOPS for a given WU to determine what Credit it should receive, but since you are running anonymous platform, the Estimated FLOPS for your WUs isn't the true value as it's been modified by the server when allocating you the WU in order for the estimated run time to be correct.

All you need are the Estimated FLOPS for a given WU to determine what Credit it should receive, but since you are running anonymous platform, the Estimated FLOPS for your WUs isn't the true value as it's been modified by the server when allocating you the WU in order for the estimated run time to be correct

I think bitcoin utopia followed the cobblestone formula exactly and one could get 12 million credits in 65 seconds with the right equipment. That was in 2016, about 5 years into the "credit new" method.

I had the belief that each credit had an intrinsic value but clearly when solving a science problem (for example) the algorithm might converge faster on certain computers or never even converge at all (timeout) due to a certain set of initial random numbers in a Monte Carlo method.

Let me read this again....

All you need are the Estimated FLOPS for a given WU to determine what Credit it should receive, but since you are running anonymous platform, the Estimated FLOPS for your WUs isn't the true value as it's been modified by the server when allocating you the WU in order for the estimated run time to be correct

This sounds like the scheme back in 2010 where one had a 'requested credit" and after the project thought it over and compared to wingman, one received a "granted" credit. If I understand what you wrote, then if I calculate the FLOPS correctly I should get "X". If my wingman does the same and gets "Y" then the lower of the two X or Y is the value that is granted. It seems to me that one could game this by spoofing the platform. However, the only way that would work is if the wingman was also spoofing else the lower of the two credit values would be granted.

I still would like to plot credit -vs- wall time for each GPU using actual granted (or even requested credit). I am curious if the plot would be smooth. That would indicate an accurate assignment of credit to the work unit would it not?

Then there was Credit Screw (oops, sorry) Credit New.
Credit is no longer granted according to the definition of the Cobblestone, but is varied depending on the perceived efficiency of the application/hardware being used, and other factors.

<Edit> Sure some old crunchers remember when a single AP paid 700-900 credits or a MB 150-200 Credits. Look Now. We need to crunch 2-3x more to receive the same credit. Marvelous NO?

I dont think Tbar made that plot. from the posts, it sounds like he just fixed the [img] bbcode that Spartana didnt get right. I think Spartana made that plot.

but Spartana was analyzing completed validated WUs, not in progress WUs, so the runtime and credit awarded were already known. just look at yours or any other public hosts valid tasks on the website. you'll see everything about it. I'm assuming Spartana wrote some kind of script to scrub through the validated tasks list on the website.

Credit/runtime = credit/second metric.