Perhaps part of this discrepancy is due to AIDS having been running here since 2005 and DDDT2 having been started recently. Five years ago most computers were much slower than those we have available today, and therefore generating fewer point per hour.

Points are based on Flops completed, not time. the older projects "Average" time per work unit is higher than the newer becuase of increases in cpu speed, so more flops/sec = less time = more points per sec, for the same number of flops. also DDDT2 is limited to faster machines, make the differance appear even greater.

compare both projects on the same box and I suspect you will get similar points/hr numbers

Hi Hypernova,
compiling fredski's answer and the details your provided, the answer is simple !
3 or 5 years ago, CPUs were less powerful and they took more time for crunching WUs. The simple average calculation you did, based on the WCG's overall statistics, shows clearly this evolution.
You should perform the same average calculation based on a 1 week or 1 month delta, and you would probably notice that the differences between projects are less than 10%.
Cheers,
Yves

Steve, nice set of results. Thanks.

Some people only have high end i7 computers, and some only have dual cores, so the average computer may not accurately reflect personal findings.
I found at least 10% differences in terms of points per project for some systems, including one low end i7, if there is such a thing?
I tested a variety of systems and each was different in some performance way, but generally I think it is fair to say that the more recent tasks perform better on more recent CPUs.
Everyone should note that in terms of points, it is better to crunch at least 2 projects. It's just finding the two or more that is the hard part, and it's very-very hard to work out, for each system, especially given the fact that project WU's change, sometimes quite often (Aids)!