2653...1900ppd......3064...1300ppd...????

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Post Reply
mahchem
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:16 pm

2653...1900ppd......3064...1300ppd...????

Post by mahchem »

Subject line says it all......why such a big difference?????

Maurice
uncle fuzzy
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: 2653...1900ppd......3064...1300ppd...????

Post by uncle fuzzy »

Unles you fold on Stanfords benchmark machine, you will see this happen. Every piece of hardware handles each of the various projects differently, and every project will have slightly different hardware stress points (clock speed, RAM, L2 cache, etc.). With Win SMP, I do very well on the 2653 and poorly with any of the other projects on an Athlon64 X2 6000+. I just spent a week with a q6600 making more points on 4 CPU clients than I could with the SMP.

It's magic, just pure magic. Logic doesn't enter into it.
Proud to crash my machines as a Beta Tester!

Image
ChelseaOilman
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:47 pm
Location: Colorado @ 10,000 feet

Re: 2653...1900ppd......3064...1300ppd...????

Post by ChelseaOilman »

Since you didn't give any details about your setup, all I can say is it's because your setup isn't the same as the benchmark machine at Stanford.
mahchem
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:16 pm

Re: 2653...1900ppd......3064...1300ppd...????

Post by mahchem »

yes,stupid of me not to give details.....sorry

2.4 gig Intel Core 2 Quad.........Asustek Basswood 3g1.05....in an HP systemk
Mactin
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:08 pm
Location: Côte-des-Neiges, Montréal, Québec

Re: 2653...1900ppd......3064...1300ppd...????

Post by Mactin »

ChelseaOilman wrote:Since you didn't give any details about your setup, all I can say is it's because your setup isn't the same as the benchmark machine at Stanford.
What is the benchmark machine for SMP ?
Image
uncle_fungus
Site Admin
Posts: 1288
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:37 am
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: 2653...1900ppd......3064...1300ppd...????

Post by uncle_fungus »

From: http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-SMP#ntoc13
a dedicated Macintosh Pro with 2 - 2.33 GHz Dual Core Xeon processors. (more specifically, 2 Woodcrest 5140 processors with 4 MB cache (each), 5 GB FBDIMM Memory (667 MHz DDR2), 1.33 GHz Bus)
ChasR
Posts: 402
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:36 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: 2653...1900ppd......3064...1300ppd...????

Post by ChasR »

In this post, viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1143&p=9779&hilit=dual+woodcrest#p9779, the user of a dual Woodcrest (5160) also complains about the ppd on the 306x WUs. I suppose there may be some other factor in the configuration of his machine causing his dual Woodcrest to underperform the benchmark machine or perhaps not.
Image
toTOW
Site Moderator
Posts: 6349
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:38 am
Location: Bordeaux, France
Contact:

Re: 2653...1900ppd......3064...1300ppd...????

Post by toTOW »

This is normal ... p2653 always have a higher output than other SMP projects :)
Image

Folding@Home beta tester since 2002. Folding Forum moderator since July 2008.
ChasR
Posts: 402
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:36 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: 2653...1900ppd......3064...1300ppd...????

Post by ChasR »

Before I get jumped on for my previous post, there could, just as likely, be some factor in the dual 5160 poster's hardware configuration to cause his machine to outperform the benchmark machine on p2653. However, on a Q6600 @ 3.33 GHz running Linux SMP, the 306x series produce about 1000 ppd less than p2653 and 700 ppd less than p305x WUs.
Image
theMASS
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:54 am
Hardware configuration: 8 - Q6600s (mixed steppings) average clock speed 3.3GHz
1 - E6420 @ 3.2GHz (This box is bulletproof - Stable for over a year) Avg 2250/PPD
1 - E6600 @ Stock (The only Intel chip in the last 2 years that "only" ran stock)
P35 and G33 based Gigabyte motherboards
Dedicated boxes run Notfred's Linux
Production boxes run Vista and XP Pro with Linux SMP running in a VM
Location: Los Angeles

Re: 2653...1900ppd......3064...1300ppd...????

Post by theMASS »

ChasR wrote:Before I get jumped on for my previous post, there could, just as likely, be some factor in the dual 5160 poster's hardware configuration to cause his machine to outperform the benchmark machine on p2653. However, on a Q6600 @ 3.33 GHz running Linux SMP, the 306x series produce about 1000 ppd less than p2653 and 700 ppd less than p305x WUs.
From my experience 306x WUs have the largest fluctuation in PPD compared to any other SMP WU I've run across. I regularly see several hundred PPD difference between 3060s on the same machine even the same WU % to % varies as much as 10%.
Image
Post Reply