Ah, so you're trying to mix-in different cpu-speeds, generations and so on...

While trying to do this comparison could be interesting, it makes it very much harder to know what effects, if any, there are of running 4 wu at once on a quad compared to a single one, and using HT or not...

So, it's easier to do these comparisons on the same cpu, to see how much, if any, increase there are from this.


Even going from a single wu to 4, you won't have a linear increase in all applications, often you'll get a penalty just by doing this. The effects of HT is also variable, but it's atleast unrealistic you'll get a linear increase in wu-production by using HT.

The second you starts running more than one wu at once, they have the chance of interfering with eachother, and slowing-down eachother. For some applications this interference is basically zero, and you'll get basically linear increase by running N wu on N physical cores, and an extra boost for using HT. In other instances running similar wu on all cores can heavily influence eachother, and using HT can give zero benefit.


I haven't looked on the crediting in WCG, but wouldn't be surprised if HT-computers claimes on the high side. If the granted credit is also on the high side, or if it's more or less in line with other computers, I don't know.

Hi Guys...I seem to have sparked more of a debate than I had expected.... if we ignore the maths for the moment, I have two set-ups, one running 4 cores (ie 8 threads) and one running dual core (2 threads) -both running Hyperthreading, the former on W7 the latter on XP - my original question was why is there a marked difference between the claim/reward points ratio per WU on the dual core than there is on the 4 core? The dual core gets better claim/reward ratios. Given that they are both working at much the same clock speed and generally churn out the WU's in comparable times (as far as one can actually generalise this, of course) this factor seems to be 'coreist', favouring machines with fewer cores!!!!! Or is this paranoia......?

I still wonder if there is a glitch somewhere in the code between XP and W7 when it comes to the HPF units - I am still getting a high ratio of 'computation errors' on the W7 and virtually none on the XP.......

Oh yes, Sekerob, the additional throughput of WU's on the 4 core is way more than 15% extra - there was a very noticable difference of slope on my points graph between the two machines as soon as the 4 core was operative. On this, I am now regularly checking in over 150hrs/day computing time, often more when I'm not using the machine for other things in the evenings - so there is a very noticable benefit!

I am running all available projects on all my machines.
So far the computational error for HPF2 only occured on the i7 Windows7 machine. All others have finished the WUs just fine.

However, I haven't been getting any errors in the last few days, so maybe the issue (whatever it was) fixed itself.

Who said it was W7 and I7 only?

Buenos días,

Unrelated to this topic, this message is not an error, rather simply tells that the sciences were stopped to perform the periodic benchmark which lasts about 30 seconds after which there should be a line to tell that computations were resumed.


Sorry, in English since Spanish is Spanish to me ;>)

And congratulations as finally after many decades you will again have uniform grammar and dictionary for the 300 million Spanish speaking on the planet (second language spoken after Mandarin)