| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Teams
Thread:  Join "MyOnlineTeam" Today - Chapter 38 |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 499
|
|
| Author |
|
|
keithhenry
Ace Cruncher Senile old farts of the world ....uh.....uh..... nevermind Joined: Nov 18, 2004 Post Count: 18667 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Interesting. There must be some setting that is responsible. If I download IE8 (not via Windows Update but from the IE website) and do a custom install, I should be able to load it into a separate directory, right? I want to have both levels of IE on the machine. You should be able to, just don't count on it working the way you want it to (but you might get lucky). Some parts of IE were artificially made part of the OS back in the Win9x days ... this is why MS has maintained that they couldn't sell Windows without IE. BTW, I'm using Firefox 3.5.2 and the font looks smaller than it used to on the congratulatory messages. If some setting is responsible for the change, it's most likely the WCG forum software and not a browser setting (just a guess, though). - D SHOULD is always the operative word with anything connected with the Dark Lord it seems. According to Kevin, WCG only sees the problem on IE6 so that would tend to rule out something on the website side, the CSS for example. Given that some folks see small and others see large leads me to believe it's a browser setting. Question is which obsure setting.  Okay, just to be sure it's not a browser setting i tried IE7, IE8, Firefox and Chrome on WinXP, Vista, and Win7 (various versions on various operating systems). Also, since I had no life last night, I tried it on three different computers (not all variations on all computers). Without going into extreme detail, the font looked small on every variation that I could come up with. It has to be the new forum software... Chris, it's not a lack of a life. It's plain old bullheaded cussedness.  You're convinced it's a website problem. Big question - if it's a website problem, why do different folks see different things using the same browsers? Gerald and RT saw large letters with Firefox and IE8. You didn't. Not that you're wrong either. It's probably something that changed on the website (it changed for me with the forum software upgrade) that displays okay if something is set one way and not if it's set the other way. Implication is that Kevin, RT and Gerald have it set the one way and you and I have it set the other way. The real question is which one. |
|||
|
||||
|
keithhenry
Ace Cruncher Senile old farts of the world ....uh.....uh..... nevermind Joined: Nov 18, 2004 Post Count: 18667 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Howdy everyone.. I've noticed some i5's and other processors are now on the market.. 870's, 860's too, if I remember right.. are any of them worth it..? Dr. Mike.. It's just the latest souped up engine for the latest muscle cars. Oops, bad analogy. You weren't even born until after the muscle car era. |
|||
|
||||
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7846 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Howdy everyone.. I've noticed some i5's and other processors are now on the market.. 870's, 860's too, if I remember right.. are any of them worth it..? Dr. Mike.. It's just the latest souped up engine for the latest muscle cars. Oops, bad analogy. You weren't even born until after the muscle car era. Check this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410.html Might be more than you really want to know. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
|||
|
||||
|
RT
Master Cruncher USA - Texas - DFW Joined: Dec 22, 2004 Post Count: 2636 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I just did a quick review of the Intel processors. The I5 processors are I7 processors without the hyper-threading. You can run 4 threads on an I5 and 8 on an I7. Now as Intel is quick to point out, the I7 is not an 8 core processor but rather allows you to fill in empty processor time in each core with another thread. Please note that this is not the hyperthreading of previous processors...this is far more effective as in the I7-920. I think the I7 is far better for crunching. Now looking at price performance, I would look for an I7-860 at this point anyway; It looks to be in the "sweet spot". And it looks like a real cruncher at a reasonable price (at least at this point in it's life cycle).
---------------------------------------- |
|||
|
||||
|
keithhenry
Ace Cruncher Senile old farts of the world ....uh.....uh..... nevermind Joined: Nov 18, 2004 Post Count: 18667 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
MyOnlineTeam Daily Statistics for 09/09 - All Members:
----------------------------------------Team rank movement report =========================
Points milestones report ======================== parmesian reached 16,000,000 points  Runtime milestones report ========================= RT reached 30 years of runtime Coingames reached 20 years of runtime Results returned milestones report ================================== laughing66607 returned their 2,400th result New members report ================== No new members found. Retired members report ====================== No new retired members found. For the week as a team: Statistics Total Run Time Points Results Team Records: Results Returned: 12/19/2007 2,522 Points: 05/06/2009 518,871 Runtime: 01/25/2006 1:123:00:53:34 Good crunching folks!!!! |
|||
|
||||
|
keithhenry
Ace Cruncher Senile old farts of the world ....uh.....uh..... nevermind Joined: Nov 18, 2004 Post Count: 18667 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
MyOnlineTeam Daily Statistics for 09/09 - Active Members
----------------------------------------Active team members report ==========================
Note: Active members are those who earned points in the prior 30 days. Top Twenty active members returning points today: 01: RT - 65,498 points 02: Coingames - 55,619 points 03: marysduby - 53,687 points 04: parmesian - 25,477 points 05: brown chris - 24,147 points 06: NiceMedTexMD - 16,985 points 07: keithhenry - 15,806 points 08: Dave Bell - 15,126 points 09: Vuj - 11,520 points 10: sulcata - 9,580 points 11: kkelson - 8,747 points 12: Blueprint - 8,733 points 13: Esteban69 - 5,726 points 14: Airwolf_Liu - 3,711 points 15: wrr - 3,095 points 16: stares - 3,078 points 17: darth_vader - 3,027 points 18: PohSoon - 2,701 points 19: frans6nl - 2,613 points 20: WindmillMan76043 - 1,960 points Total points returned today: 352,813 Active members returning points today: 38 Average points per member active today: 9,284.55263 |
|||
|
||||
|
keithhenry
Ace Cruncher Senile old farts of the world ....uh.....uh..... nevermind Joined: Nov 18, 2004 Post Count: 18667 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
.......CONGRATULATIONS parmesian ON REACHING 16,000,000 MOT POINTS !!....... |
|||
|
||||
|
NiceMedTexMD
Veteran Cruncher United States Joined: Aug 17, 2006 Post Count: 929 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
wow.. that's a lot of points!!!
----------------------------------------Dr. Mike..  |
|||
|
||||
|
keithhenry
Ace Cruncher Senile old farts of the world ....uh.....uh..... nevermind Joined: Nov 18, 2004 Post Count: 18667 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I just did a quick review of the Intel processors. The I5 processors are I7 processors without the hyper-threading. You can run 4 threads on an I5 and 8 on an I7. Now as Intel is quick to point out, the I7 is not an 8 core processor but rather allows you to fill in empty processor time in each core with another thread. Please note that this is not the hyperthreading of previous processors...this is far more effective as in the I7-920. I think the I7 is far better for crunching. Now looking at price performance, I would look for an I7-860 at this point anyway; It looks to be in the "sweet spot". And it looks like a real cruncher at a reasonable price (at least at this point in it's life cycle). OK, I can understand that a core would have idle time that allows processing of a second thread given normal use but with crunching, the idea is to use all the idle time to begin with. Just how much time is there on a core during crunching when it's really idle? I guess that could occur when it's waiting on disk i/o, swaping memory, paging or the like but, during crunching, how can there be that substantial more time available? Do you see the 5th-8th WU's racking up CPU time at the same rate as the 1st-4th? |
|||
|
||||
|
RT
Master Cruncher USA - Texas - DFW Joined: Dec 22, 2004 Post Count: 2636 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I just did a quick review of the Intel processors. The I5 processors are I7 processors without the hyper-threading. You can run 4 threads on an I5 and 8 on an I7. Now as Intel is quick to point out, the I7 is not an 8 core processor but rather allows you to fill in empty processor time in each core with another thread. Please note that this is not the hyperthreading of previous processors...this is far more effective as in the I7-920. I think the I7 is far better for crunching. Now looking at price performance, I would look for an I7-860 at this point anyway; It looks to be in the "sweet spot". And it looks like a real cruncher at a reasonable price (at least at this point in it's life cycle). OK, I can understand that a core would have idle time that allows processing of a second thread given normal use but with crunching, the idea is to use all the idle time to begin with. Just how much time is there on a core during crunching when it's really idle? I guess that could occur when it's waiting on disk i/o, swaping memory, paging or the like but, during crunching, how can there be that substantial more time available? Do you see the 5th-8th WU's racking up CPU time at the same rate as the 1st-4th? Too bad I cannot be very specific. Yes, if I run 8 processes they all accumulate significant amounts of CPU time - all the time. If I cut my I7-920 to 4 WUs, I see about 30% idle on all 4 cores. The only way that I can make all 4 cores run at 100% is by running 8 Work Units. Now looking at the charts that some of the testers show, up to 25% of the cores will be wasted if you are running but one task per core. I know that is not the kind of specificity that you want but that is all I have and I can see in terms of completed WUs, it makes a real difference in WCG throughput. |
|||
|
||||
|
|