On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 01:35:32AM +0000, Bob Crandell wrote: > Jacob Meuser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 01:03:13AM +0000, Bob Crandell wrote: > > > Where did you find that? > > > > On the Team EUGLUG stats page. Divide points by work units. You have > > the highest overall score (by far), but you're average score/wu is ~16.15, > > while mine is ~50.81. > > > > http://folding.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=668 > > > > > Jacob Meuser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 08:31:10AM -0700, perdurabo wrote: > > > > > > > > > While, OpenBSD is relatively slow as molasses, ... > > > > > > > > Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I'd like to point out that > > > > I have the highest average score per work unit in Team EUGLUG's > > > > Folding @ Home effort. ~98% of these work units were processed > > > > with OpenBSD running the linux console binary. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > _______________________________________________ > I found this in their FAQ: > How do you decide how much credit a work unit is worth? > > How do you determine how many points a work unit is worth? Before putting out > any new work unit, we benchmark it on a dedicated 2.8GHz Pentium 4 machine > with SSE2 disabled (more specifically, as reported by /proc/cpuinfo on linux: > vendor_id : GenuineIntel, cpu family : 15, model : 2, model name : Intel(R) > Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz, stepping : 9, cpu MHz : 2806.438, cache size : 512 > KB). This machine runs linux, so all WUs are benchmarked with the linux core. > > We plug the results of this into the following formula: > > points = 110 * (daysPerWU)
which means uptime, reception and delivery, etc, also come into play. > where daysPerWU is the number of days it took to complete the unit. This > equation was chosen to match the points for previous Gromacs WUs to the > previous point system. The upshot is that Tinker WUs will be worth more than > before we set up the new points (i.e. before April 2004). > > Please note that the very concept of a reference machine will mean that some > WU benchmarking will vary from the performance on your machine. Even between > P4s, there are significant differences in architectures over the years. > Moreover, variations between FAH WUs can also lead to differences in > benchmarking points. > > Our goal is consistency within a given definition of a reference machine setup > (described above), but beyond that the natural variation from machine to > machine and WU to WU will never alllow any point system to perfectly reflect > what you get on your machine. > > I'm glad you pointed this out. I was wondering where the score cam from. > > BTW my pod of CPUs range from about 350 to 2.8 G. I've had a 266 PII to a XP 2400. Current slowest is 533 K6-II/III (mobile CPU in a Comaq desktop that came with a Cyrix). I might hook up the PII (terca 8000), just to make things more fair ... > Blaze on, Rocketman. hehe *cough* *cough* Seriously though, our team rank is slipping, and only you can help! (No not you, Bob, nor the other Bob, or well, ya know what I mean.) http://folding.stanford.edu/download.html -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
