Both of the computers in that quorum have a history of claiming more credit than they are awarded. The average credit between the the claimed was large enough that the system used the historical average of granted credit per cpu sec to determine the amount of credit to award. Since both systems usually claim higher than what they are awarded, this value is lower than either computers claim.

Short answer: No.

Over the long term, I usually see more, less or the same and a good balance of the being granted more credit than claimed versus less credit than claimed and usually come out even.

MM - there are two factors of your machines themselves that are contributing to the "penalize" situation. First, a 64 bit OS will run the BOINC benchmarks faster than 32 bit but seeing as the real applications themselves are 32 bit it creates a disparity right out of the gate. The second factor is that you (in most cases, except your MC system) are running with HT on. Now we all know that HT on is overall more productive than HT off but if you compare the claimed credit on an i7-920 with HT on and them HT off you will see a disparity ... now this is the same machine running the same WUs ... which is *right*? For sure, I would agree if we looked at it and said ... HT being turned on takes more electricity so it should be awarded more points but them someone else says my P4 is a huge electricity pig so I deserve more points. I guess what I'm getting at is there is always going to be disagreement based on whatever the focus of the point basis is.

I'm not saying it is right, just trying to help explain some of the factors involved in the calcs used today.

On to a generalized comment about points, not a direct response to MM's commets but more for general consumption
Seeing as we are all about doing the science and the points are just shiney bobbles anyway, I think WCG goes to too much effort to calculate and explain the points system. This in turn causes more questions on the forums than makes sense to me. I know there is a huge effort underway to revamp the entire BOINC pointing system but I wonder if it will be any easier for people to understand and any easier to explain to the people who can't get it on their own.
I would suggest picking a stock number of points per WU and call it a day. Sure, people would complain that they are getting "big" WUs and deserve more points but people are complaining about the points anyway and the more complicated the formula the more people question and distrust.

An example of what I saw speaking to:
https://secure.worldcommunitygrid.org/ms/devi...s.do?workunitId=160106483

https - You cant link to something only you can see, ie your tasks.
We all have our own examples, so we get the picture.
As I said elsewhere, I think it is down to Boinc to get all the projects to use the same credit systems. I think credit should be down to GFlops crunched, rather than Wattage or time spent dwelling! We get awarded badges for time as is. As for per task, I have run tasks for over 350h and other tasks for 8min. Not a good system!