Augustine, you need to include a copy past of the list as only u can see it....we get an empty screen with column headers.

"Moreover, this particular system throttles its clock frequency automatically and when it runs the benchmarks, the frequency is pegged to the max, but not when running project applications, when the frequency is lowered due to their low priority."

I think the frequency of the computer is at its maximum even when it is only running project applications. This is especially true if you set the BOINC throttle to 100%. The frequency of your processor is the same whether you are running benchmarks or WCG. Even in laptops (with Speedstep enabled for Intel processors), the frequency is maximum when the demand for CPU time is 100% or when the project applications are the only programs using CPU time. You are being given a much lower credit because your system is claiming too high. It is being treated as an outlier as can be seen from the claimed credits column.


cio_redulla

emenezes, where did you get your client from?

Ah, you missed out the "built it myself" bit. Sounds like you broke the benchmark (quite by accident) by optimising it away.

You see, compiling the client with all sorts of optimisations and extra CPU features makes absolutely no difference to the work you crunch for WCG. None. Zero. Sorry.

So, if you turn on loads of extra features in building the client, then the benchmark will go super-fast (after all, the entire benchmark can generally fit into L1 cache) - but the actual work is unaffected. Until you come to calculate the points you will claim. And the super-fast and completely wrong benchmark provides you with a totally wrong claim.

And WCG penalise crazily high claims. Partly to stop you getting an insanely high score, and partly to alert you to the fact that your benchmark is out of whack.

Please ask if any of this is unclear.

The bottom line is this: if you have a fancy super-fast computer, then you get more points by doing more work. You do not get more credit for doing the same work as someone else. You should claim exactly the average for each work unit - only you will be claiming for many, many more work units.

It wasn't enabling vectorization that undid the benchmarks, but what I stated earlier about Linux ignoring low-priority applications when throttling the CPU clock whereas the benchmarks are run with normal priority, when the CPU clocked is pegged up.

It's pretty bad on this particular system because it varies the CPU clock between 1 and 2.2GHz, thus the discrepancy between claimed (based on benchmarks results with the CPU clock pegged) and the actual credits (based on the application running with the CPU clock throttled).

I submitted a patch in the BOINC development mailing-list to correct this and it should be in the next client release.

Meanwhile, I rebuilt the client with this patch and the benchmarks results are lower, reflecting the actual performance of this system when the CPU clock is throttled. I will keep an eye on its results.