Is CPU folding worth the cost?

[od6]

Hello. I'd like to start folding with my laptop, but I'm not sure if it's worth the time and money. My laptop has a decent dual-core Intel CPU but no ATI/Nvidia GPU, so I'm capable of CPU folding but no GPU folding. I read that the vast majority of scientific work is done by GPUs and Playstations because they are much faster. I'd like to know if, considering the price of electricity, CPUs are still capable of major contributions to the project. Thanks.

[bruce]

Welcome to foldingforum.org, od6.

A question like that is essentially impossible to answer objectively. There's no concrete answer to "How much SHOULD it cost to fold?" You don't have any way to compare folding to not folding.

Is donating money to [insert disease name here] research worth the cost?

It's true that modern GPUs that are added to desktop machines by gamers are very powerful compared to low powered CPUs. [It's much less accurate to say the PS3 is as powerful as modern GPUs, though that was true when the PS3 was first introduced.]

I fold on laptops as well as desktops. They use much less power than more powerful hardware and the Pande Group makes good use of ANY contribution, both big and small, so the question of money sort of disappears.

The question of time invested will depend almost entirely on your preferences and can really be pretty minimal. You do have to install a client but constant maintenance is NOT required although many choose to invest a lot of their time finding ways to eek more performance out of their hardware. The only time I invest in my laptops is periodically confirming that they're plugged in and still folding (and I can do that from my desktop machine in another room).

NOTE: You didn't ask if it makes sense to BUY a new laptop just to fold. For me, it makes absolute sense to fold on whatever hardware I already have. The only equipment that I own which is capable of folding that doesn't run 24x7 is a PS3. It's the original model that uses a lot of electricity and generates a lot of heat. I'd be a lot more likely to let it run 24x7 if I had one of the newer low-power/low-heat versions.

[od6]

Thanks for the answer.

But let me write my question in another way. Is spending 1 dollar/euro in electricity by folding with a GPU more productive than spending the same amount of money by folding with a CPU? I won't install Folding@Home on my laptop if someone having a GPU spends 10 times less money on electricity than me for the same amount of work done.

[kiore]

Thanks for the answer.

But let me write my question in another way. Is spending 1 dollar/euro in electricity by folding with a GPU more productive than spending the same amount of money by folding with a CPU? I won't install Folding@Home on my laptop if someone having a GPU spends 10 times less money on electricity than me for the same amount of work done.

You are asking a difficult question, GPU and CPU units are different, of course your laptop is hardly likely to crunch numbers at the speed of a high powered GPU, and a high powered GPU is not a match with a 36 thread 8 cpu server type thing, and that is not a match against some supercomputer...
Your laptop will work slowly on units that are designed to be completed more slowly, it will also not use very much power and will do this important research while you are doing other stuff on your laptop. Quite a bit of the research on this project must have been completed by people using laptops or not what could be described as high powered devices. To not contribute because another faster system could theoretically contribute faster could mean that everyone just gives up and leaves it to the person with a Kray in their garage.

[DoctorsSon]

Thanks for the answer.

But let me write my question in another way. Is spending 1 dollar/euro in electricity by folding with a GPU more productive than spending the same amount of money by folding with a CPU? I won't install Folding@Home on my laptop if someone having a GPU spends 10 times less money on electricity than me for the same amount of work done.

That is still a loaded question.
Some cpu's are more efficient ppd/watt than a gpu.
For many they choose to add a gpu because it it cheaper than upgrading their cpu to achieve a better ppd.
I look for more cost efficient hardware for ppd/watt when I have the spare money, but I still fold with what I have.
I have a few Core2Duo's that only get about 1.5-2k ppd, so at that point the ppd/watt kinda sucks but I fold because I enjoy it better than gaming.
I also have cpu/gpu folding comps that get better ppd/watt.

Right now the best ppd/watt are probably the 4P set-ups.
They get a killer ppd on as low as 500w.
But the initial costs are not low.

[jrweiss]

Another part of the answer is that laptop CPUs are inherently MUCH more power efficient than desktop CPUs. So, if you have a "normal" laptop CPU in your machine, you'll likely use <50 Watts to Fold at 100% utilization (1 CPU slot for each core). With the lid closed and/or screen off, 35-40 Watts is a reasonable expectation.

I Fold on my laptop full time, except when actually traveling.

Just monitor the laptop for a while after you start, to ensure it doesn't overheat. Some machines just don't tolerate full-time, full-load computing very well. If yours runs too hot, throttle both slots down to 75 or 80% load, rather than running 1 core full-tilt and the other idle. I found that temps go down quite quickly when the load is <90% or the CPU is throttled back to "battery mode".

[bruce]

They're all loaded questions -- with very personal answers. Let me put the question back on you:

What are you prepared to donate?

[7im]

Every contribution helps move the science of the project forward, so all contributions, large and small, are worthy.

So like bruce asked, are you prepared to donate with your PC 24/7? Or more like 2 PCs?or less like 1 PC running 16 hours a day?

Only you can decide that.

[Jonazz]

As long as your WU makes the preferred deadline, you've moved the science forward.

[bruce]

As long as your WU makes the preferred deadline, you've moved the science forward.

Most of your WUs should be finished by the timeout (aka - preferred deadline). If you do complete an occasional WU after the timeout, there's a chance that you're work will move science forward (i.e.- won't be duplicated by someone else) so it's worthwhile letting it finish -- but you'll get no bonus points and you certainly should try to avoid it.

[PinHead]

The way I look at it is that each of these students and professors are only there 'X' number of years for learning and passing the knowledge forward. It's a difficult and unknown equation, so the question becomes, "Is my contribution maintainable and comfortable by me?". If your contribution is easily maintainable by you, then yes; it should be worth your time and resources. It's a donation to science and mankind, only give what you are comfortable giving.

[RMouse]

As long as your WU makes the preferred deadline, you've moved the science forward.

Preferred deadline or final deadline?

[Jesse_V]

As long as your WU makes the preferred deadline, you've moved the science forward.

Preferred deadline or final deadline?

Preferred. If you exceed that, someone else is given the WU. You'll still get base credit for completing it after the preferred deadline as long as you finish before the final deadline.

[7im]

Completing the work unit after the Timeout (pref dl) and before the Deadline (final dl) still moves the science of the project forward, just not as quickly, so not as many points are given.

[bruce]

* Your WU passes the timeout and is reassigned.
** Case 1: You complete the WU before the second copy is completed. The project moves ahead but somebody else wasted their time unnecessarily completing another copy of the same WU.
** Case 2: Somebody else completes a second copy of the same WU before you do. Science moves ahead and your copy is totally wasted, even if it's finished before the (final) deadline.
** Case 3: The second copy is assigned to somebody else is lost or expires. Your copy if VERY important, but this scenario is the most unlikely.

Actually it's a statistical thing, so the answer is "maybe" rather than yes or no. (There's is some probability of each of those three cases.) 7im's answer is as accurate as anyone can give you since you have no information about what happens to the other copy.

Note: The points awarded in each of these cases are based only on what happens to that specific copy, not based on what has happened to a duplicate copy.