Folding Forum

Ericson_Mar wrote:Is there a way to bump this up to 100% across all cores when I’m not using the machine?

Yes. You could run the SMP-client found at the high performance beta clients page. Alternatively you could run 4 single core clients. SMP would be more valuable from scientific POV and bring in more points as well. However it is slightly more complicated to set up and it might require some "babysitting" every now and then.

Would that be dangerous? Or require liquid cooling, etc.? How much extra watts does that take?

As long as the air cooling is sufficient, no, it is not dangerous. An aftermarket cooler like Thermalright Ultra 120 is highly recommended over the stock cooler, though. My Q6600 takes approx 40W over idle when running on all cores (approx 120W vs 80W).

Howdy Ericson_Mar,
First things first... did you get it running?

Ericson_Mar wrote:How many extra Watts does this take anyway? I don’t imagine that this is like a one watt light bulb like it says in the FAQ. But I guess the FAQ wasn’t written when quad cores were around...
...How much extra watts does that take?

You'd have to use a watt-meter at the wall to be sure how much your machine uses, but most machines use around 30- 45 watts above what they'd use while turned on and just sitting there idling. Some donors with dedicated and OC'd Quad boxes have given their TOTAL machine power usage at around 110watts... Over- Clocked CPUs pull a lot more power.
Dedicated boxes can be stripped down to bare essentials to save power and just run from a USB flash drive without any hard drives, etc.

from the FAQ-

Roughly, a CPU uses about as much power as a watt light bulb.

That's a clumsy statement, and needs fixed.
A couple of lines later, the FAQ gets it right...

On average, a Pentium-type computer uses about 100 watts (if the monitor is off).

It looks like it’s an extra 28% CPU on each core.

If you have 1 core running flat-out using FAH, Windows Task Manager will show that you are using around 28% CPU power. That's 1 core at 100%, plus the other 3% for whatever else you and your machine are doing... 1 core flat-out, 1 core @ 3% and 2 cores takin' a nap... 4 cores X 25% (of total CPU each) = 100%

Is there a way to bump this up to 100% across all cores when I’m not using the machine?

Yes! But it's highly recommended that you give yourself a bit more time to figure out how FAH works before you jump into running more than 1 instance, or a more high-performance client, please...

Would that be dangerous? Or require liquid cooling, etc.?

Not really, but machine cooling is very important, and you'll learn about what works and what doesn't as we go along. A well-designed factory- built machine shouldn't have a problem.
Here's one (of many) interesting threads with some info on what we're talking about...

edit: what that fast-typing Ren02 said...

FAQ updated.

How much power/money does keeping a FAH running 24/7 on a computer use?

Roughly, a CPU uses about as much power (watts) as a typical light bulb...

And don't give me any crap about incandescent or CFL. By the time CFLs become typical, the watts used on a processor will probably match.

7im wrote:
And don't give me any crap about incandescent or CFL. By the time CFLs become typical, the watts used on a processor will probably match.

What??? I would figure it'd be more like...air-conditioner!

I installed it somewhere else and it looks like it's working now, thanks.

Ericson_Mar wrote:

7im wrote:
And don't give me any crap about incandescent or CFL. By the time CFLs become typical, the watts used on a processor will probably match.

What??? I would figure it'd be more like...air-conditioner!

The power used by a "typical" PC has not increased much over the years. In fact, it may have decreased. Faster processing is offset by die-shrink and other power saving features.

There will always be exceptions if you run the hottest machine on the block (pun intended) but "typical" machines are getting both faster and more efficient. Of course a lot of those efficiency improvements are happening first in laptops and then moving to desktops, but they're still happening.

bruce wrote:

Ericson_Mar wrote:

7im wrote:
And don't give me any crap about incandescent or CFL. By the time CFLs become typical, the watts used on a processor will probably match.

What??? I would figure it'd be more like...air-conditioner!

The power used by a "typical" PC has not increased much over the years. In fact, it may have decreased. Faster processing is offset by die-shrink and other power saving features.

There will always be exceptions if you run the hottest machine on the block (pun intended) but "typical" machines are getting both faster and more efficient. Of course a lot of those efficiency improvements are happening first in laptops and then moving to desktops, but they're still happening.

Then why is it that over the years I’ve gone from 150 Watt PSU to 600 Watt PSU today?
My next computer will have a 1 kW PSU, I know it!

Then why is it that over the years I’ve gone from 150 Watt PSU to 600 Watt PSU today?
My next computer will have a 1 kW PSU, I know it!

How much of that 600 watt PSU are you actually using?

A Q6600 with a modern video card will run on a 350 watt PSU.

Flathead74 wrote:

Then why is it that over the years I’ve gone from 150 Watt PSU to 600 Watt PSU today?
My next computer will have a 1 kW PSU, I know it!

How much of that 600 watt PSU are you actually using?

A Q6600 with a modern video card will run on a 350 watt PSU.

Probably not all of it. It is supposed to handle SLI video cards so I guess if I had gotten 2 of the latest video cards to make a “hottest machine on the block”, it might use more, heh.

Ericson_Mar wrote:

Flathead74 wrote:

Then why is it that over the years I’ve gone from 150 Watt PSU to 600 Watt PSU today?
My next computer will have a 1 kW PSU, I know it!

How much of that 600 watt PSU are you actually using?

A Q6600 with a modern video card will run on a 350 watt PSU.

Probably not all of it. It is supposed to handle SLI video cards so I guess if I had gotten 2 of the latest video cards to make a “hottest machine on the block”, it might use more, heh.

And a "typical machine" probably uses on-the-motherboard graphics. I see a lot of computers with zero add-on boards plugged into the slots. A lot of FAH donors are the exceptions to the efficiency trends.

bruce wrote:
And a "typical machine" probably uses on-the-motherboard graphics. I see a lot of computers with zero add-on boards plugged into the slots. A lot of FAH donors are the exceptions to the efficiency trends.

Yeah, I was surprised to see Ren02’s testing of 80W on a quad machine…and 120W on a fully loaded quad CPU on the same machine. I guess these new PSU’s are really overkill. You must have to be doing some space re-entry simulations with 10 HD’s to use all the wattage up.

Ericson_Mar wrote:I guess these new PSU’s are really overkill. You must have to be doing some space re-entry simulations with 10 HD’s to use all the wattage up.

A HD draws a lot more power when it's starting up than when it's just running. I think the steady state power is around 5 W but I don't know how high it goes during spin-up.

Ericson_Mar wrote:Yeah, I was surprised to see Ren02’s testing of 80W on a quad machine…and 120W on a fully loaded quad CPU on the same machine. I guess these new PSU’s are really overkill. You must have to be doing some space re-entry simulations with 10 HD’s to use all the wattage up.

Dedicated Quad machines running SMP via flash drives and with few/no peripherals use even less power.

A cheap 650 watt/rated multi-rail supply might deliver 12v @ 24 amps, while a quality PS might only be rated at 450 watts total, yet deliver the same current @12v. There's also a "braggin' rights" factor in the trend to high-watt multi- rail supplies.

Also, most power supplies aren't very efficient with a lot of energy being spent in heat. Look for power supplies marked 80+ efficiency. Antec EarthWatts series supplies are very popular amongst folders. A good power supply is worth a few $$ more to a dedicated folding effort.

Mine says 12V@49A. haha I suppose that's "bragging" overkill.