| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Are points being awarded fairly? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 103
|
|
| Author |
|
|
GEORGE DOMINIC
Senior Cruncher Joined: Nov 21, 2004 Post Count: 227 Status: Offline |
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
n top it all P4s vs AMD change the subject tell us again beat change the subject Again change the subject has got u won more time everybody lost the subject changed its definately not amd vs p4s again ,change the subject? what do you mean theres n alternative point of view compulsery parrelel argument P4s vs amd etc etc etc =p4s vs amd Demt http://www.twra5t.co.uk JUST IN CASE a nods as good as a wink to a plague of blind bats |
||
|
|
GEORGE DOMINIC
Senior Cruncher Joined: Nov 21, 2004 Post Count: 227 Status: Offline |
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
n top it all P4s vs AMD change the subject tell us again beat change the subject Again change the subject has got u won more time everybody lost the subject changed its definately not amd vs p4s again ,change the subject? what do you mean theres n alternative point of view compulsery parrelel argument P4s vs amd etc etc etc =p4s vs amd Demt http://www.twra5t.co.uk JUST IN CASE a nods as good as a wink to a plague of blind bats |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
it seems in my case the slower machines get more points but the faster machines get more work units!
for example the following are averages for the total work units each has done. my old P3 gets about 500 points per WU My AMD Athalon XP get about 200 points per WU and My new Turion64 gets around 175 points per WU |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I would still like to know how we are managing to crunch more Work Units with BOINC than the general UD population too Looks like the answer to your question Bill is "they are not" Sorry for the delayed reply; I kind of got lost in all this high tech talk.  If the BOINC system isn't managing to crunch more work, I still don't have a problem with fairness if the extra points being awarded are due to the artificial limits imposed by UD on the higher performance machines. Cheers. Bill Velek |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Hi Bill
----------------------------------------unfortunately not I wasn't capped by UD and yet I can now stretch my legs 2.5 times faster using BOINC by points. From the discussion and experiments in this thread I'd say points are a lost cause to BOINC. We need to move on to measuring our comittment to this project by run time I know this doesn't take into account the relative power of the machines but there is now no consensus between BOINC and UD so that's the best we have. Run time probably comes close to measuring the relative electricity bill we donate to this great cause. Sorry Bill I tried  Dave  [Edit 1 times, last edit by David Autumns at Feb 24, 2006 9:35:31 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I still don't have a problem with fairness if the extra points being awarded are due to the artificial limits imposed by UD on the higher performance machines. Cheers. Bill Velek Not sure I feel that way. It's kind of like athletes using performance enhancing drugs. The rules are setup and they are the rules. If points are to mean anything you’ve got to be consistent. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi Bill unfortunately not I wasn't capped by UD and yet I can now stretch my legs 2.5 times faster using BOINC by points. From the discussion and experiments in this thread I'd say points are a lost cause to BOINC. We need to move on to measuring our comittment to this project by run time I know this doesn't take into account the relative power of the machines but there is now no consensus between BOINC and UD so that's the best we have. Run time probably comes close to measuring the relative electricity bill we donate to this great cause. Sorry Bill I tried Dave Well I am still getting plently more points with Boinc (x1.9), but now I am confused about runtime. I have read that UD used wallclock time and Boinc uses CPU process time. So why if of Boinc is looking at the the process time why is it that there is a direct relationship between work units where the granted points is significantly lower than the points claimed, and the amount of other work the pc was doing at the time the work unit was being processed? This is in direct conflict with this statement: "Will I lose points if a work unit finishes slower than usual? No. Points are not tied to number of work units, but amount of computational effort exerted. Therefore, if your computer worked for three days on one work unit, or in those same three days completed five work units, you would get the same amount of points if the machine worked at the same level of effort. " Which appears here: http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/help/viewTopic.do?shortName=points#26 Which may be true for UD but certainly isn't for Boinc, and is confirmed by kneed's reply in this thread: http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=6258 Which I think (as I am getting more confused) means that comparing the times is just as useless as comparing points. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Which I think (as I am getting more confused) means that comparing the times is just as useless as comparing points. No your not getting confused Batchoy- your right, comparing time between Boinc and UD is equally flawed. The only answer really is to use one or the other, and as Boinc is more flexible in allowing other projects and multiple CPU's, personally I would go for that and scrap UD. Ady  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Which I think (as I am getting more confused) means that comparing the times is just as useless as comparing points. No your not getting confused Batchoy- your right, comparing time between Boinc and UD is equally flawed. The only answer really is to use one or the other, and as Boinc is more flexible in allowing other projects and multiple CPU's, personally I would go for that and scrap UD. Ady I agree with Ady, I like the way Bionc runs on my marginal old laptop, it seems to use less resources, and return about the same ammount of pionts. Another advantage is the ability to use to true multi-processor rigs to full advantage - meaning a dual processor P3-4 server. The graphics with the UD client are nice, but I like the bare bones interface bionic provides. In any case, finishing WU's is the real goal, and everyone is going to have a favorite, so crunch on... Rick |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I still don't have a problem with fairness if the extra points being awarded are due to the artificial limits imposed by UD on the higher performance machines. Cheers. Bill Velek Not sure I feel that way. It's kind of like athletes using performance enhancing drugs. The rules are setup and they are the rules. If points are to mean anything you’ve got to be consistent. Well, that's a good point. For instance, if we have two people with identical machines running for the same length of time and with the same patterns of extraneous uses, one of them really shouldn't be earning more points than the other just because that user happens to choose to use BOINC. Now, a very good point was made some time back that the important thing is the work that we are doing; that is true, without a doubt. But team and individual competition is, in my opinion, an effective inducement for many of us to try harder. Speaking for myself, if it were not for the competition, I probably would have spent only a small fraction of the time I have now spent trying to recruit new members. If not for the competiton, I probably wouldn't be spending nearly as much time on these boards, and might not even be here at all. But by being here -- despite my personal reasons -- I am encouraged to do more for this project. So I think points -- and the integrity of the point system -- are a very important dynamic of this project. In fact, I have no doubt that this benefit was probably anticipated when the point system was created in the first place. If it ever gets to the point that many people feel that the system is unfair, then they might quit competing, the result being that they could take less interest in the project and become less devoted to crunching. That would be most unfortunate, so I hope the people in charge will realize that and fix the problem. Cheers. Bill Velek |
||
|
|
|