| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: My seven computers |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 6
|
|
| Author |
|
|
RicktheBrick
Senior Cruncher Joined: Sep 23, 2005 Post Count: 206 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I have seven computers. I have a quad computer using Intel q6600 microprocessor. It has been running since the 11th of Jan. It is already my number one computer in that it averages 12.6 results per day. I also have a duo computer using amd 64 bit rated at 4200+. It comes in second but at 3.84 results per day it is only a third of the quad's. I also have a amd 64 bit rated at 3000+. It comes in at 3 results per day so it is close to a quarter of the quads results. I have a celeron at 2.7ghz and it is doing 1.89 results per day or less than a sixth of the quad's. It is running at 300 mhz more than the quad but with a lot less results. I have 2 amd 32 bit computer rated at 2800+. One is a everex and is getting 1.83 results per day and the other is a emachine which is getting 1.6 results per day. I do not know why the everex is doing so much better than the emachine as they are both running windows xp. Lastly I have a IBM machine with a 2.4ghz celeron running windows xp pro. It is running at the same speed as the quad but it is coming in at only 1.42 results per day. It would take 9 of these computers to equal the results of the one quad. I guess I should build me another quad and get rid of these slower computers.
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The cost of another quad would be offset some by the savings in running costs.
Soon be at the point where anything under 2 ghz isn't worth the electricity cost. |
||
|
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3715 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Hi Rick!
----------------------------------------When you use results for evaluating or comparing machines it is much more interesting for the reader if you say for which project. My quad was running at 100 minimum and my Pentium at 11-12. But obviously we have not chosen the same projects.  I say "was", not because I have broken them but because that will be less impressive now that DDDT is five times longer than it was originally. Cheers. Jean. |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
What have you done to your quad? Mine runs them in only 4x longer and on Vista too
---------------------------------------- But, it's coincidentally 9x-12x the production of the now switched of P4HT (depending on the type of science and if they produce piles of Page Faults).
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Everex designed motherboards and systems have always run faster than similar spec machines. Just the way they design the systems could account for the difference.
|
||
|
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3715 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Sek,
----------------------------------------I am only giving the theory: five units in one that should give five times longer in average, whichever way you take it. The only improvement should be that there should be smaller variations between the small ones and the big ones since there is already some mixture of small and big ones among five random ones. The quad has started returning long units this morning only (I had a stock of short ones) therefore I have not enough material to give reliable real numbers. But even though, the 12 WUs that have been returned confirm the theory: 4.3 hours average, i.e. 0.86 or 51 mn 37 s average for the five units inside. And this is very close to what I could see most of the time (with extremes at 35 mn and 1 h 15 mn). Now if you compare your shortest long WUs to the slowest short ones you can certainly achieve a better ratio (2.85 so far for me!). |
||
|
|
|