Folding Forum

dark41 wrote:You're right, it is a waste of time because you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Flathead knows exactly what he's talking about. 150-200PPD is what fast systems get when running the uniprocessor client with standard units. Just because you chose to run the SMP client doesn't make him wrong...

And FWIW, my quad (Q9450@3.2GHz + 9600GT) got 6500PPD from 170W the other day, and I have seen 7700 from 180W (4 uniprocessor clients running the fastest units going at 1000PPD apiece and 3700PPD from the 9600GT). So I make that 3x the work done for 1.7x the power. Not as impressive as 30:1 but still an improvement.

I would put it that you don't know what you're talking about: SLI is irrelevant to F@H, and on the units released before today GTX280s could pull 7000PPD on their own, which is why if you look on the folding farm thread several people have duallies and quads feeding four GTX280s and running SMP for ~30,000PPD from one box. Someone said that their box pulled 900W at the wall. 9 of your 100W systems would produce maybe 25,000PPD absolute maximum, so that's 5000 "free" PPD.

My point remains valid.

I knew when I first posted on this topic that I was fighting a losing battle on a pro-F@H forum who's users have gone to great lengths to argue the benefits and overlook the negatives. (EG: Using numbers from the classic version on C2D or even Pent D would be silly and seemed a deliberate attempt to skew the numbers) And I never thought my cheap and efficient systems would compete for PPD with much more costly quad and SLI/gaming systems, nor do I care if they do. But the fact that a couple people would use those systems to argue their side shows that they haven't gotten the point. So a 900 watt system does 5000 times the folding that my 100 watt system does. It also contributes to the environmental problems at 9:1. I don't see how anyone would be proud of that.

Unless you need to keep those power hungry systems running for other legitimate purposes, it's rather hypocritical to think you're doing huge favors for the world. Anyone who doesn't see how running F@H on those systems is robbing from Peter (the environment) to give to Paul (cures for diseases) isn't really as smart as they like to think they are. The competitions prove my point. It's one thing to fold on a system that has to run anyway. It's quite another to start up all the systems we can to "win?" a competition. I would expect more from Standford and their graduates.

I imagine most of you still won't get it. And I guess it's resourceful for Stanford to tap into this market because it'll exist with or without F@H. But hopefully some will get it. What would be even better is if the developers get it, and start optimising their programs to work with more efficient processes, and in fact penalise less energy efficient components.

Here's some thinking "outside the box". What if eliminating fossil fuels also eliminates half of our diseases? In that case, all the monster folding machines were also the biggest contributors to the problem. Hmmmm...

Flathead74 wrote:

Tigerbiten wrote:Lets not get in a flame war here ............

Stating true facts is not flaming.
I am not flaming anybody.
I don't understand why you would even have to post something like that.

Flathead74, that comment was probably aimed at me not you..

Dark41,

My apologies, for responding to tone (as I perceived it) more than content and for assuming you were not running the SMP client and were in the US.

I get it and I don't like building expensive space heaters (especially in Florida) any more than the next guy. I am intensely interested in in being more efficient in general and don't build single purpose computers either.

However, proteomics (hey that's not in the dictionary here!) is one of the most promising areas of study in general to improve the human condition and the task is large enough that it requires a ton of resources.

I believe that it is incumbent on the Pande Group to consider efficiency as well as effectiveness in developing their software and I don't believe that you will find anyone on the forum who disagrees with that.

I shudder to think what the size of the power bill for the CERN Large Hadron Collider will be but such basic research is also justified in my mind.

Best regards and good day,

Hi everybody,
After many years of contributing to FaH, I'm saying good bye too.
Not because of my electricity bill, but because of some principles: at his beginnings, I was happy to contribute to FaH and the science behind - of how proteins fold (or mis-fold)themselves. This was a non-profit contribution for a non-profit cause.
Now, the FaH turns more and more to the direction of drug development. This is a noble cause too, but yet.. profitable.
In my opinion, the pharma-industry has enough money to develop or upgrade his own distributed computing research system, or to pay the contributors.
I quit now, but I wish you further successes.

tati

tati wrote:Now, the FaH turns more and more to the direction of drug development. This is a noble cause too, but yet.. profitable.

Where do you get your information?

I can assure you, that you are incorrect. Or the information source that you gathered this from is incorrect.

MstrBlstr wrote:Where do you get your information?

Just read the project descriptions.

Which projects

The points were meant for a feeling of accomplishment/know how much work has been done. It is secondary that it stirs up a little competition, which happens to be good for business. As far as points go, don't get caught up in them! The important part is the contribution made! Don't like the points, ignore them. Don't get greedy about what you get and don't get. It seems like some people are getting very demanding... I made this analogy on another board.
"It would be like when Public Broadcast is doing a fund raiser and you call in because you are going to donate $50. Then after talking to the volunteer about your donation, you demand to get the premium gift of the DVD instead of the coffee mug for the standard $50. Then, you complain that $50 might be a bit much, you don't know if you can afford it."
Donate, what you want to donate.

Concerning electricity usage, see my post here. http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5429
Always good to be an informed consumer. Donate, what you want to donate.

Concerning Carbon footprint. I don't know what a direct comparison would be, but I wonder how much I have to drive my car to work, to equal the the carbon footprint from a computer running 24/7/366.(It's a leap year) I'm guessing my car is by far going to be a much worse offender by comparison. Compare that to the amount of junk a volcano spews into the air, insignificant. We need to take a top down approach and hit the biggest offenders first. we can't stop a volcano..yet..MWA HA HA, but we can focus on cars and factories and power consumption. The Prius car has been found to be just as bad on the enviro as a Range Rover, due to battery manufacturing, and shipping it literally around the whole world to make. All in all, the computers that contribute to FAH are doing important work, and they deserve the juice they use.

If I was part of the PG, I might find it offensive that some people think we are doing a bad job when they are trying so hard....especially since a lot of those people are volunteers.

dark41 wrote:So a 900 watt system does 5000 times the folding that my 100 watt system does. It also contributes to the environmental problems at 9:1. I don't see how anyone would be proud of that.

Unless you need to keep those power hungry systems running for other legitimate purposes, it's rather hypocritical to think you're doing huge favors for the world.

That is a fair point. (FWIW I run folding when I need the computer as opposed to for the sake of folding). However the carbon emissions as a direct result of Folding@home (and this is assuming that all systems are run dedicated, as opposed to with F@H in the background) were calculated to be so minimal in comparison to other things (transport, beef farming) that a lot of people would put it as statistically irrelevant. It's not like we built a new power station solely to run the F@H network (impractical though that would be)

MstrBlstr wrote:

tati wrote:Now, the FaH turns more and more to the direction of drug development. This is a noble cause too, but yet.. profitable.

Where do you get your information?

I can assure you, that you are incorrect. Or the information source that you gathered this from is incorrect.

I think he has been reading about some other projects which actually are funded by drug companies and assumes that FAH is in the same group of projects. FAH's research is published in the public domain, so if they do learn something about drug design, it won't be a trade secret or a patent for one company because all companies will have the benefit of the same information and it won't be patentable.

dark41, your treehugger comments is useless. Everyone contribute however they think is good and on many parts of the world, power come from renewables resources like hydroelectricity or windmills.

'Bye Zora,
I hope you and your roommate can reach an agreement. Until then, you might try "not" sharing your pizza and make a point of your own. See you again soon, we hope.

@dark41,
If I understand your main point, then your logic is flawed.
Do I understand your point? GPUs shouldn't be used because they use more power than your machine?
A working 9600GSO uses 45-50 watts above idle and produces around 100 GFLOPS folding power.
Your machine produces maybe 18 GFLOPS* for your stated 108 watts.

Which is the most efficient folding machine?

You may be interested in the environmental discussion in this thread... FAH and the Environment
In fact, I think I'll head over there and fan the flames and quit stepping on Zora''s thread.

* #'s derived as follows:
A P4 makes 1.2 X GHz measured in GFLOPS folding power, i.e. a 3 GHz P4 makes ~3.6 GFLOPS not Linpack
3.8GHz x1.2 x2(cores) x2(c2d)FLOPS/(P4)FLOPS ~18 GFLOPS

This is all hogwash. I've more than offset the power used by my folding two fold, with CFLs, better house insulation so the AC runs much less, water heater blanket, shading the south side of the house, collecting rainwater, time of use power, timers, turning off older computers, painted the house white to reflect more sun, etc.

I DO NOT have to rob Peter to pay Paul to run F@h!!! And neither do you. Some may see it that way, but many do not. Each is entitled to your own opinions, but please don't assume your viewpoint is the only "correct" viewpoint. That just demonstrates shortsightedness.

As to F@H being for profit, that kind of goes against the non-profit clause at Stanford. Click on the DONATE button on the project homepage for more info on that non-profit status. And while F@h may be helping to design drugs to treat or cure diseases, they PUBLISH all of their findings PUBLICLY. They even publish the data from folding. F@h is VERY much different from those OTHER distributed computing project that are ONLY FOR PROFIT, are funded by drug companies, or that do NOT publish their findings.

Sorry to see people leave, but if you want to leave, just say goodbye and go. Thanks. Bye!