On 11 Nov 2001, at 20:12, Nathan Russell wrote: > >The output from the script is interesting, but it can be very > >misleading for those of us who have recently upgraded equipment.
Yes, those who have recently upgraded equipment - or added more systems - will find their "hours per day" very far from static. I've been with GIMPS/PrimeNet for 3.5 years now, but for various reasons my hours/day has increased by 10% over the last two or three months. I think perhaps the hours/day reported should reflect recently submitted work - say over the last 3 months - rather than the historical average since the user registered with PrimeNet. > > Well, the way I see it the "P-90 Standard" itself is less than > perfect. It was computed on a machine that can no longer even be > purchased new in some stores, Hmm. It's a Long Time since I saw a P90 system in a store. My guess is you'd be lucky to get more than $5 for a P90 system unit at an auction on e.g. eBay. If you _really_ want a P90 system unit, you'd probably be best advised to try your local landfill. The point is NOT whether a particular system still exists, it's to define a "benchmark" which can be applied to _any_ system. Obviously you end up with an obsolete benchmark system - you can compare a "new" system with an existing one, but there's no way George could have used a 2GHz P4 as a benchmark system in 1995. > on a version of the program well before the present version. I thought the timings had been scaled (at least to v19); the current benchmark system is a PII-400 (?) On a personal note, I just passed 100 P90 CPU years accredited by PrimeNet - but I didn't get a telegram from the Queen, so presumably the benchmarks _are_ wrong! Regards Brian Beesley _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
