| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: Help Conquer Cancer
Thread: Intel Core7 CPU |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 32
|
|
| Author |
|
|
sk..
Master Cruncher http://s17.rimg.info/ccb5d62bd3e856cc0d1df9b0ee2f7f6a.gif Joined: Mar 22, 2007 Post Count: 2324 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
A page link would help!
|
||
|
|
TimAndHedy
Senior Cruncher Joined: Jan 27, 2009 Post Count: 267 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Here is the link.
http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.ph...eamid=&st=0&or=12 Sorted by Credit Per CPU Second. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
sej7278, Your GPU will do at least ten times more work than your CPU! The GPU tasks typically use a small percentage of the CPU. Sometimes it is as low as 3%. As you have 4 true cores, I dont expect the GPU would slow down your system too much. You can always select to not use GPU when you are using the system, directly using Boinc and if you have Boinc 6.10.43 you can snooze GPU from the task bar! PS. In my opinion, HFCC is a truer Cancer research program than HCC, and the results would also help adults with cancer. The GPU folk also do some cancer related research. my gpu is a 9400gt which is listed as too slow, which i'd agree with as it really hoses my desktop when in use and gets too hot for my liking to leave unattended for hours. i'm using linux not windows so don't have a taskbar, just upgraded to 6.10.45 i also joined the HFCC project, although it only has a few days left i think, and i've only contributed one result so far! i've also had to clock back to 3.2ghz for stability reasons at the moment, i might give 3.6ghz a try using some new bios settings i've heard give good results.... |
||
|
|
duanebong
Advanced Cruncher Singapore Joined: Apr 25, 2009 Post Count: 134 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Thanks TimAndHedy. I sorted by credit per CPU second... the results are a bit strange. It seems a Core 2 Duo @2.6GHz is 1.1x faster than a Core2 Quad @ 3.2GHz, and 1.4x faster than the i5 750.
----------------------------------------IntelQEMU Virtual CPU version 0.9.0 0.016291 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3400+ 0.013802 Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU E5300 @ 2.60GHz 0.010447 Intel(R) Core(tm)2 Quad CPU @ 3.20GHz 0.009666 AMDQEMU Virtual CPU version 0.9.1 0.009006 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5677 @ 3.47GHz 0.008603 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz 0.00826 AMD Athlon(tm) II X4 600e Processor 0.007958 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3380 @ 3.16GHz 0.007943 Intel(R) Core(tm)2 Duo CPU E8435 @ 3.06GHz 0.007882 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU W5590 @ 3.33GHz 0.007767 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU W3565 @ 3.20GHz 0.007759 Intel(R) Core(tm)2 Duo CPU E8335 @ 2.93GHz 0.007731 Genuine Intel(R) CPU 000 @ 3.07GHz 0.00742 Intel(R) Core(tm) CPU 750 @ 2.67GHz 0.007353 Intel(R) Core(tm)2 Duo CPU E7600 @ 3.06GHz 0.007351 Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU E6300 @ 2.80GHz 0.007343 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3370 @ 3.00GHz 0.007275 Intel(R) Core(tm)2 Duo CPU E8235 @ 2.80GHz 0.007261 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU W5580 @ 3.20GHz 0.007089 Intel(R) Core(tm)2 Duo CPU E8135 @ 2.66GHz 0.00706 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5492 @ 3.40GHz 0.007055 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5482 @ 3.20GHz 0.007042 Intel(R) Core(tm)2 Extreme CPU X9750 @ 3.16GHz 0.006983 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3113 @ 3.00GHz 0.006963  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Thanks TimAndHedy. I sorted by credit per CPU second... the results are a bit strange. It seems a Core 2 Duo @2.6GHz is 1.1x faster than a Core2 Quad @ 3.2GHz, and 1.4x faster than the i5 750. yeah i think i'd call BS on a lot of those statistics, especially the QEMU one which is bound to be miles out based on it using the emulated clock not the physical one. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
And the likely explanation will be something like this:
All the CPU's of a certain class (IE, E6600 / Q6600 / ....) are grouped together without regard to any overclocking. So if you have almost all the Q66's that came out at 2.6 that are OC'd to 3.5 and above, and they just run... it's likely to skew the PPM / PPH / PPS ratios. so that means ( 3.5 / 2.6 = 1.35 ) the OC'd Q6600 at 3.5 can deliver 1.35 times as many results and thus points... |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
yes, i thought as the ghz values were given they meant the actual clock speeds, but looking at them they're just the stock values reported by /proc/cpuinfo
so the top overclockers like q6600's, e5200's and i5-750's should perform much better as i expect most of them are overclocked. plus as we've seen, the i7's are slower due to hyperthreading but can do more at once. |
||
|
|
TimAndHedy
Senior Cruncher Joined: Jan 27, 2009 Post Count: 267 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
yes, i thought as the ghz values were given they meant the actual clock speeds, but looking at them they're just the stock values reported by /proc/cpuinfo It's only a generalization. I figure over several hundred entries it gives a good picture. I generally ignore any of the items with just a few systems. |
||
|
|
sk..
Master Cruncher http://s17.rimg.info/ccb5d62bd3e856cc0d1df9b0ee2f7f6a.gif Joined: Mar 22, 2007 Post Count: 2324 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
That chart is a meaningless jumble of incomparable data from different projects with different point systems, using CPUs with different clocks, and unequal numbers of different CPUs.
It looks like it was done on a per thread basis, not per CPU; unless it's upside down or their database did not sort correctly! Whatever way, it is not a good way to pick a CPU! Presently the i7's are the top desktop crunching CPUs. Then the 6 core AMD's followed by the top end Phenom II and SKT775 quads. After that it's the mid range SKT775 Quads, Athlons, i5's and triple cores. Obviously the more cores the better, so the i7-980X tops the pile, but it also uses 12 threads! The 6core AMD CPUs match up reasonably well against the rest of the i7's, mostly because of their price. The difference here is 6 cores vs 8 threads with the Intel's doing slightly better. |
||
|
|
TimAndHedy
Senior Cruncher Joined: Jan 27, 2009 Post Count: 267 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Whatever way, it is not a good way to pick a CPU! Please feel free to post anything with more information. I would be happy to look at it. [Edit 1 times, last edit by TimAndHedy at May 12, 2010 2:47:10 AM] |
||
|
|
|