7im wrote:Actually, there is a strict formula. Read that page again!!!
The formula is strict, of course; the additional variables cause, well, variation. PG is free to substitute different k values to balance out a change in the deadline time. The old formula had no option to include a k value to counteract a change in the deadline -- you got the same deadline every time you ran the formula.
7im wrote:The "We vary deadlines" is an exception to the rule, not the rule.
So? I'm not pointing out it always happens -- I'm explaining that the option exists. Obviously that option was used with the 80xx WUs, and may have been used with others (I haven't run the math on other WUs). The point is this: variation is allowed under the new formula. It wasn't allowed under the old formula.
7im wrote:In what bizaro universe is an i5 close to a P4?
Are you really suggesting A4 work units, WUs that run on both UNI and SMP systems, be benchmarked on a P4? Might as well remove the QRB while you're at it!!!
Did you even bother reading the quote about PPD equivalency between a P4 and an i5 that I included? For your benefit, I shall quote it again; I hope you read it this time. I'll even include another line from the FAQ that makes the comparison even more explicit:
The new benchmark machine is a Core i5-750 with Turbo Mode off. We compare single-core performance to the old benchmark machine, a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4.
According to our projections, this new benchmarking standard will result in point yields for a 2.8 GHz P4 that are slightly above the typical uniprocessor values
I am not suggesting that A4 WUs be benchmarked on P4s. I am restating what the FAQ states: a 2.8GHz Pentium 4 will get slightly more than 110 PPD from WUs that are benchmarked on an i5-570. Hopefully that is now being made clear enough to you -- apparently others in this thread figured it out without difficulty.
7im wrote:Dude, you're not making any sense...
I'm not making any sense?