Thanks Sgt Joe. It will be interesting to see what happens with prices when the Ryzen 3 series comes out. I am currently leaning towards the I 9. It's only about $300 more than the Ryzen 7 2700. I would be interested to see if anybody has got any tasks times from an I 9 9900 K. I also believe there is a waiting period for the I 9 CPUs and they are in short supply/high demand. I believe this is a move by Intel

I understand what you're saying Paul. The 18 core AMD CPU is not due out until September (in New Zealand) and I am not wanting to spend that much money. It would be dearer than my current system built at the end of 2014 I will stand what AMD is said series 3 being released in early July has to offer 12 core 24 thread. Otherwise I think I will be sticking with Intel. As I said earlier in this thread the Ryzen 7 is equivalent to an Intel I 5 in terms of performance

1. the computing time you achieve per day has nothing to do with clock rate. It is simply (1 day) x (number of threads) and maybe a bit less if other processes run

2. Your i7-5960X should be 8 core / 16 threads and therefore getting a bit less than 16 days computing time per day if you run 24/7. If not, something is wrong

3. As the i9-9900k is 8 cores / 16 threads as is the i7-5960X you will not gain anything in computing time per day

4. What you will however gain is more points per runtime and therefore more points per day. The reason is the higher clock rate and possibly a higher IPC (instructions per cycle). This will also benefit the science, as more workunits are processed per day

5. Be catious with advertised maximum turbo frequencies, as you mentioned 5 GHz for the i9-9900k. This is the maximum frequency with load on 1 core. With all cores active, frequencies will likely be much lower. I don't know what can be achieved with overclocking, but more than a very mild overclock is not advisable for 24/7 crunching anyway, as electricity usage increases exponentially for only a low performance gain.

6. What you will also gain with the 9900k is a better energy efficiency. This processor should use less electricity while getting slightly more work done

7. If I were you and WCG output was my only concern, I would buy a Ryzen 2700 or even better wait a bit for the 3rd gen Ryzen. You will have nearly the same performance for a much lower price and higher energy efficiency. (If gaming performance is the primary aim, things might be different under certain circumstances)

No, this is not correct. No matter how fast you process the work units it will have no bearing on the amount of run time. If you do 1 unit in 24 hours or 100 units in 24 hours, you still only get 24 hours of run time. Faster processing of units will result in an increase in points. Run time is an indication of how much time your computer spent running times the number of threads it was running.
Cheers

Your math is confusing me because you have not attached any labels to your numbers. I presume you run 12 hours per day with 15 threads (plus 1 for GPU work). This does equal 180 hours per day of computer time. However, not all of the work units you process in a day will be valid. Some of them will be pending validation, some will be pending verification etc. So not all of the units will be counted in your numbers on the day they were completed. Your daily numbers will be a bit lumpy. Yes it is possible to average more than 180 hours per day over a short interval such as 7 days, but it is not possible to average over 180 hours per day over a longer period of time, such as 30 days. The days the pending validation and verification units are validated are the days on which they will be credited.
Also, even though you may be running very close to 100% efficiency, your computer will have some units which will have a difference between the cpu time and the elapsed time. The cpu time can not exceed the elapsed time.
I hope this helps a little bit.
Cheers