Just a shot in the dark, but what how is the machine networked? Are you using wireless or LAN? I've had some irregularities using wireless on my machines.

darn, up to number 6..
http://stats.free-dc.org/stats.php?page=hosts&proj=bwcg&sort=today

Finished up at number 6 today..app 217,000 WCG points..
http://stats.free-dc.org/stats.php?page=hosts&proj=bwcg&sort=today

A computer having larger cpu-times due to HT is expected, since it's not a real core worse-case the cpu-times are doubled compared to a "real" cpu. On top of this trying to compare to Linux isn't always a good idea, since atleast some of WCG's applications clearly is using a sub-standard windows-compiler or less-than-optimal compiler-choises.

But, while comparing between OS/applications isn't neccessarily telling if where's a problem somewhere, it's still possible to compare within the same OS/application but across wu-series.

From Movieman's few reported results, he's got some FAHV* around 2 hours, but suddenly a large jump to 4-5 hours for the FAHV*disulfide-wu's. Are other crunchers seeing a significant increase in cpu-times for these wu's, or is it only the E5-2697 this is happening with?

If other crunchers doesn't see similar increases in cpu-times it points to a computer-problem and not a crediting-problem.

edit - taking a quick look on the E5-2697's specifications, apparently the memory is 4-channel DDR3-1866 as top speed and 59.7 GB/s max memory-bandwidth.

The old i7-920 on the other hand was 3-channel DDR3-1066 with 25.6 GB/s memory-bandwidth. Hitting the i7-920's memory-bandwidth is easily accomplished by running other projects than WCG, a good benchmark is Climateprediction.net (but unfortunately they've not got any available Hadam3p-models at the moment).

With the E5-2697 having 3x as many cores but only roughly 2x the memory-bandwidth, it's possible you're hitting the limit also with WCG and everything goes slower. It's possible different wu-series with the same application is more memory-demanding than other wu-series so it didn't show-up the first couple of days.

Sorry for not providing more than I have.

Again, comparing to what I usually get I don't see a crediting problem in Movieman's results page example.
Therefore, without comparing between OSs or hardware architectures, if Movieman has suddenly got half the points per day he usually got I would suggest that -
- either some of his WUs have suddenly lasted more than usual for whatever reasons
- or he has had a bunch of them put in Pending Validation or Verification status but then he should have had them validated later and informed us
- or worse many have been declared Invalid or Error and have been definitely lost, although I doubt that he would have not noticed it.

That's all I can say from my chair, sorry again.

Edit: I forgot the case that Movieman could have been outrageously and consistently overcredited before the page he has shown us, but I doubt it even more.