I agree.Gleep wrote:Unrelated to FAH, the current high core count offerings of AMD and Intel make it clear that Windows has some significant issues handling 30+ logical processors.
Nevertheless, FAH has always focused on the *@home market and there are very few folks who will spend $1000+ for a CPU for a home computer. First is the basic issue of science. Adding an expensive GPU to a computer adds more computing power than adding a threadripper. Second, there's the issue of popularity. A lot more Donors see a gamer quality GPU as more useful than one with a limited video capability but with the ability to run more programs concurrently. People are much more likely to spend $500+ to $2000+ for a high end GPU than a high-end CPU. Doing so also earns a lot more FAH points reflecting FAH's preference for that improved science.
FAH will not stall. You'll get an assignment, though it will reduce the number of allocated threads to some number that works.Of course I have no idea if 45 threads is better overall for the science or if it risks the slot stalling due to WU shortage or whatever. I'm surprised to see a CPU above 1M PPD, although most of the points are from the bonus of returning WUs so quickly.
Most people have compensated for FAH's shortcoming by manually splitting up the processors by creating multiple CPU slots. e.g.- two CPU:16 slots or even three CPU:12 slots are more likely to be fully utilized that one with a setting of CPU:32+
Oh, and I've heard that the 32-thread limitation is a Windows issue. Does you Linux system allow more (not that it's going to be a real benefit.)
The software used to construct FAHCore_a7 is from gromacs.org. I doubt they're going to change that selection inasmuch as the limitations are not a problem for most Donors.
GROMACS uses Domain Decomposition to allocate portions of the calculation to each SMP thread. This method works well with the CPUs on most home computers. That software is not used to construct the FAHCore's for GPUs.
