Folding Forum

The efficiency cores just slow down the performance cores. You should set the slot to cpu:8.

You should get a passkey if you haven’t already. Once you complete 10 WUs, you should get more than 150k ppd.

I've managed to max out m1 pro (10 core) CPU.
Configure -> Slots -> 8 CPUs (= number of P-cores)
Configure -> Advanced -> Priority slightly higher (to avoid E-cores)

Output is 145k PPD at 20W SoC power

Some observations:
P-cores are running at 2.1 GHz, fans are nearly inaudible at 1500 rpm, looks like OS throttled performance down
On cold start cores are running at 3 GHz and initial PPD estimation was around 300k PPD

P.S. it's still an emulated x86 process. When do we get native arm64 support?

vzim wrote:P.S. it's still an emulated x86 process. When do we get native arm64 support?

My guess is sometime in 2022, but no idea on exactly when during the year that will happen.

For the client it will probably be when they release the next version of the client. Work was resumed recently on version 8, it had been halted in early 2020 as F@h started its response to COVID. I am also aware of some work being done towards creating an Apple Silicon version of the CPU folding core, but testing and distribution of that may take a while. Some changes on the server end may also need to be made.

There is already an ARM64 version of the CPU folding core out for ARM systems running Linux.

+ Macs Fan Control to force min 2500 rpm
Final WU score: 227k PPD @30W or 7566 PPD/W
Properly optimized native version will be around 10k PPD/W

vzim wrote:Properly optimized native version will be around 10k PPD/W

Maybe. Rosetta 2 is pretty good at translating Intel code to the ARM code used on Apple Silicon, and it caches the translated code so it is not continuously incurring the overhead of translating running code. So it remains to be seen just how much overhead gets removed by running a native folding core.

It's possible to run FAHClient exclusively on E-cores.

This involves some QoS magic and LaunchDaemons/org.foldingathome.fahclient.plist editing
macbook air m1
PPD est: ~24k (most likely overestimated)
Package power: 465 mW

At this power level I can keep it running 24/7 even on battery power

vzim wrote:At this power level I can keep it running 24/7 even on battery power

How well does it do with completing wus within timeout?

Neil-B wrote:

vzim wrote:At this power level I can keep it running 24/7 even on battery power

How well does it do with completing wus within timeout?

It haven't completed single WU yet. After running WU 16955 overnight it's at 30% and 1.26 days left (ETA) with 4.46 days left to complete.
Upd on power and PPD: 3.5k @ 0.33W

16955 timeout is three days with 5 day expiration ... completion within the timeout rather than expiration is preferable as at timeout the wu is assigned to another folder ... from your figures it looks like it will complete in 1.86 days and so within the timeout which is great

Recipe for cooking on E-cores
Edit the /Library/LaunchDaemons/org.foldingathome.fahclient.plist Configure cpu slot in FAH Control to use proper number of cores (4 in my case)
Restart the folding service

Interesting.

Do you get the same result using ProcessType Background?
Does FAHControl work properly with the background clamped client?
What app do you use to get cpu core usage and clock speeds?

Thanks.

calxalot wrote: Do you get the same result using ProcessType Background?

I haven't tested it. I suppose it should be an equivalent in terms of CPU cores scheduling. Not sure if there additional restrictions applied by OS for "background" daemons

calxalot wrote: Does FAHControl work properly with the background clamped client?

I see no difference in FAHControl operation

calxalot wrote: What app do you use to get cpu core usage and clock speeds?

sudo powermetrics

vzim wrote:+ Macs Fan Control to force min 2500 rpm
Final WU score: 227k PPD @30W or 7566 PPD/W
Properly optimized native version will be around 10k PPD/W

Are you measuring SOC power, or total system power?
The PPD values in PPD/W should be measured at the power socket, not from a program like HWMonitor that gets SOC power consumption.

It would be interesting to see which GPU system would be matching it in terms of PPD/W.
I would guess if the above watt ratings is SOC, and not total system power, that you're closer to 8PPD/W, which should be close to the PPD/W of an RTX 1660, paired with a 35W Intel Celeron CPU, running a total system power of 150W.
The desktop would be crunching out closer to 1,2M PPD though.

I measure SoC power impact w/ FAH process active.
Power at wall (with screen sleep) is usually 2-5W higher