Folding Forum

kasson wrote:We have re-benchmarked project 5102. It is now valued at 3340 points, deadline 8 days.

Great ... thank you very much

kasson wrote:We have re-benchmarked project 5102. It is now valued at 3340 points, deadline 8 days.

Great!, thank you for the quick response, and re-crunching the numbers.

Now can we get greedy and ask for the extra points for the 5102's completed before today

dschief wrote:Now can we get greedy and ask for the extra points for the 5102's completed before today

This will never happen : as a general rule, when a WU has been credited to an Username/Teamnumber/PointValue, it will be for ever.

toTOW wrote:

dschief wrote:Now can we get greedy and ask for the extra points for the 5102's completed before today

This will never happen : as a general rule, when a WU has been credited to an Username/Teamnumber/PointValue, it will be for ever.

I'm just happy they have re-benched and made the points realistic.

I'm not sure when this WU was released but I don't think it's been out long so the low ppd issue has been rectified quickly (and over the weekend as it looks like a two day unit on the reference machine).

toTOW wrote:

dschief wrote:Now can we get greedy and ask for the extra points for the 5102's completed before today

This will never happen : as a general rule, when a WU has been credited to an Username/Teamnumber/PointValue, it will be for ever.

Your right; but I'm a shameless slut for points & had to try!
You'll note, that I did put the little Smilie face after the question

Shameless sluts for points are accepted on this forum, especially if they smile.

Standard policy, though: Nobody gets retroactive points.

thank's for having a look at this situation, and for taking the time to respond & react.

we fold for hope & hope to fold on and on....

Well, I'm still only getting 2/3 of what I got with 2605, but at least it isn't totally absurd anymore. Thanks.

I think it's better to compare with p2665 because p2605 (or 2653) were designed for dual cores in the early days of the SMP client whereas p2665 and p5102 are new, and designed for quad cores that are most common now.

Even a quad would still be getting less points on 5102 than even it would on the evil 2665.

If it is their wish that SMP points are cut by a third, that is fine, but I wish they would say so, instead of just having some evil work units that don't seem to jive (not even close) with the previous projects. With GPU2 ppd being so high, I question the timing of these new low point projects. Are we trying to be pushed from SMP to GPU2? If so, that's fine. I want Stanford to get what it wants, but I rather they be open about it if that is the case.

Keep in mind that this 5102 project is still using the old A1 core which doesn't scales well ...

The need of A2 core is still growing ... but it's still under development

toTOW wrote:Keep in mind that this 5102 project is still using the old A1 core which doesn't scales well ...

And his machine isn't the same as the benchmark machine.

Can anyone say how large are these WUs download size and also the finished work? P2665 is something like 5Mb download and 27Mb upload.

Thanks!

I think it's only 22MB to upload on the p2665

For the p5101 : 2.8 MB to send, and 700 KB to download.
For the p5102 : 4 MB to send, and 987 KB to download.

Project: 5102 (Run 0, Clone 109, Gen 0)

Download:

Initial: 0000; - Receiving payload (expected size: 987098)

Upload:

(Read 4100781 bytes from disk)