Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
![]() |
World Community Grid Forums
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
No member browsing this thread |
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 52
|
![]() |
Author |
|
Mathilde2006
Senior Cruncher Germany Joined: Sep 30, 2006 Post Count: 269 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Why are they taking so long on a i7 920? Do you have BOINC set to "Use at most 100% of CPU time" and is it set to run "While in use"? Yes - it's just XP 64. With Vista 64 they need ~1h40min. ![]() [Edit 1 times, last edit by Mathilde2006 at Apr 10, 2011 10:30:31 AM] |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Are you sure you do not have local prerferences overriding your web settings? Vista or WinXP (32 or 64) should not make a difference. I am running WinXP32 and am turning these WUs in just over 1 hour with an overclock of 3.8 GHz.
|
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
i7960 3.2 win 7 64 bit 8 cores 1.07 -1.17
|
||
|
TimAndHedy
Senior Cruncher Joined: Jan 27, 2009 Post Count: 267 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Why are they taking so long on a i7 920? I would expect it is due to Hyperthreading. |
||
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7777 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
After the switch to 6.42 the first 5 or 6 HCC units must have been left over from the old batches (repair jobs ?)because I saw no difference in the run times. Q6600 stock, Vista. However the "newer" ones must have started coming through because the times are now in the 1. 3 hour range vs. the old 3 hour range. I am surprised with the more than 100% improvement. Now on another machine, a 1.6 ghz P4 Win 2000, they went from about 6.5 - 7 hours to about 4.3 hours. Not as dramatic an improvement, but much better anyway.
----------------------------------------Thanks for the improvement. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Why are they taking so long on a i7 920? Do you have BOINC set to "Use at most 100% of CPU time" and is it set to run "While in use"? I was asking the question to Mathilde2006, I run x6's |
||
|
z2000
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Feb 27, 2011 Post Count: 116 Status: Offline |
That is approximately what mine is doing too. The recent one ran almost exactly 4 hours, but it's a P4 WinXP at 2.99 ghz
----------------------------------------![]() [Edit 1 times, last edit by z2000 at Apr 11, 2011 12:41:55 AM] |
||
|
z2000
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Feb 27, 2011 Post Count: 116 Status: Offline |
It's certainly a good improvement.
----------------------------------------My prior HCC was 5.68 hours and now they're between 3.9 and 4.1 hours. This really adds up to considerable comptuting time saved, for example 12 work units: 12 * 5.68 hours = 68 hours with the old HCC, and 12 * 4 hours = 48 hours with today's HCC a savings of 20 hours ![]() ![]() |
||
|
Somervillejudson@netscape.net
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: May 16, 2008 Post Count: 1065 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Prior 2:12. +/- now 1:42+/-! nice.
|
||
|
Canada Panda
Cruncher Joined: Mar 30, 2011 Post Count: 1 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() |
The compiler updates just took my Pentium computer out of the running. Oh well, I still have four more computers doing work.
|
||
|
|
![]() |