Folding Forum

noorman wrote:.
Again, GPU3 or otherwise has nothing to do with Bigadv

Ok, so you are comparing bigadv with ... what?

What are you going to do with your points?

I've never gotten upset about points changes or the QMD issue before, but this one does disturb me. I pay for my addiction out of "Mad" money or pay bonuses, that's sort of why its never bothered me before. Don't get me wrong, my purchase decisions are carefully thought out to get me the most points for my buck, with an understanding that more points meant more contributions to the project. I know a lot of my teammates spend more than "Mad" money and are more dedicated than I, and that's what is most upsetting. It absolutely kills me that people who've invested in SR-2's, i7-970's, water cooling, etc to specifically build folding computers are having the contributions devalued. They've chosen to give up other things in life to do this, and I really don't think the decision makers considered this.

derrickmcc wrote:

noorman wrote:.
Again, GPU3 or otherwise has nothing to do with Bigadv

Ok, so you are comparing bigadv with ... what?

What are you going to do with your points?

.

Comparing with what we used to get, simple ...

.

noorman wrote:.

Again, GPU3 or otherwise has nothing to do with Bigadv

If Bigadv guns for more CPU cores, a donor wanting to Fold Bigadv has no choice but to invest in a suitable CPU and matching mainboard (certain makers like to switch to another socket for a new CPU family)
At that time he does that in the knowledge of a certain yield for said hardware and investment.
Now, after considerable time, he gets less for what is costing him more in the meantime ... (being higher power bills, mainly)

The demands for RAM may be flexible in PG's software (better use of RAM f.e.), a donor hasn't that flexibility with his purchased hardware (though). If demand has diminished, he can't return half of his purchase to correct and save ...

.

You can't return the science done either.

You seem to be suggesting that PG either should never have released the initial BigAdv wu's with their higher RAM usage, or they should never have released a new, more ram efficient core. Progress is what progress is. Bigadv is experimental, it is basically a public beta and it always has been, therefore you expect that it can change. I am pretty sure PG made that clear all along. Are you challenging that?

Bigadv is still offered a 'premium', that does not change with this. ALL that has changed is that the premium is slightly smaller. In my opinion, the premium has continued longer than it should have - the work units that used less ram should have always had a smaller premium.

@joeyg, I am sorry, but people SR-2's will still make massive points - Quick Return Bonus is still in effect and still promotes fewer, faster machines. Is 50,000 ppd really that much worse than 60,000 ppd? Per watt or per dollar 'invested' upfront it is still a ton better than GPU or regular SMP or uni-proc.

k1wi wrote: You can't return the science done either.

You seem to be suggesting that PG either should never have released the initial BigAdv wu's with their higher RAM usage, or they should never have released a new, more ram efficient core. Progress is what progress is. Bigadv is experimental, it is basically a public beta and it always has been, therefore you expect that it can change. I am pretty sure PG made that clear all along. Are you challenging that?

Bigadv is still offered a 'premium', that does not change with this. ALL that has changed is that the premium is slightly smaller. In my opinion, the premium has continued longer than it should have - the work units that used less ram should have always had a smaller premium.

@joeyg, I am sorry, but people SR-2's will still make massive points - Quick Return Bonus is still in effect and still promotes fewer, faster machines. Is 50,000 ppd really that much worse than 60,000 ppd? Per watt or per dollar 'invested' upfront it is still a ton better than GPU or regular SMP or uni-proc.

I 'm suggesting they leave the credits (well) alone; in the past, this has been shown to be divisive that they should think more than twice before tampering with an existing setup.
It 's always been a hornet's nest. If the difference isn't that much, in your opinion, then it can be left as is too.

.

The problem I have with the current changes is that there was little of the current "interest" in Bigadv bonus points until a new batch was released to beta
that had the potential for widening the gap even further,
As they are "Linux only" and I run all mine under Win I don't see why the discontent, rightly or wrongly, should have any bearing on what I've been folding
for the last six months or so, releasing them from closed beta before taking into account the probable backlash didn't help matters either,
and don't worry, I've heard all the rhetoric of "it's a beta project" and "don't base hardware on current production", but how many have purchased an Nvidia
card for a machine over an ATi one based at least a little on Folding production ?
If you want to play the ppd/$$ game the SR-2 is being devalued, as a modest pair of X58/hexcore Cpu systems will give similar production in ppd at less cost,
but isn't the whole idea of the Bigadv project and it's bonus points fast return times ?

k1wi wrote:
@joeyg, I am sorry, but people SR-2's will still make massive points - Quick Return Bonus is still in effect and still promotes fewer, faster machines. Is 50,000 ppd really that much worse than 60,000 ppd? Per watt or per dollar 'invested' upfront it is still a ton better than GPU or regular SMP or uni-proc.

Understood, but those 10,000 points may have been part of the contributor's purchase / build criteria.

Guys,

I understand that you folks don't like that you are getting fewer points for the same amount of work. That being said, Stanford is just reacting to the demands of their constituents complaining that with these big rigs capable of getting 250,000+ PPD make their contribution feel worthless -- See: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=18797. You just didn't represent yourselves well in the discussion.

I'm sure that you won't like it but I think your complaining now is a bit too late. You all should have been more pro-active and participated in the thread to counter their arguments at the time. No disrespect intended, but complaining after the fact just makes you all seem like little children whining when something didn't go your way.

Jester wrote:If you want to play the ppd/$$ game the SR-2 is being devalued, as a modest pair of X58/hexcore Cpu systems will give similar production in ppd at less cost,
but isn't the whole idea of the Bigadv project and it's bonus points fast return times ?

Both the SR-2 and the X58/hexcore Cpu systems will have similar reductions in points for bigadv, so the SR-2 is not being devalued in that sense.

The rationale for reducing the bigadv bonus is :

We would like to continue to offer a bonus for bigadv ..., but we don't want demand for bigadv to overwhelm the rest of the project or imbalance the points system.

If you read the original announcement in full: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=19059
you will see that PG are:

considering renormalizing other parts of the system but have not finalized decisions in that regard.

so bigadv is not the only class of WU that will be affected, it is just the first.

P5-133XL wrote:Guys,

I understand that you folks don't like that you are getting fewer points for the same amount of work. That being said, Stanford is just reacting to the demands of their constituents complaining that with these big rigs capable of getting 250,000+ PPD make their contribution feel worthless -- See: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=18797. You just didn't represent yourselves well in the discussion.

I'm sure that you won't like it but I think your complaining now is a bit too late. You all should have been more pro-active and participated in the thread to counter their arguments at the time. No disrespect intended, but complaining after the fact just makes you all seem like little children whining when something didn't go your way.

I though this should've been clear enough:
viewtopic.php?p=190061#p190061
But by then it was all about theoretic formulae...
and the majority of the 18 pages there whining about "these 250k ppd Bigadv Wu's" that I can't and don't fold anyway,
As I said earlier, they should've been left in closed beta until the ramifications of their huge ppd and the potential negative
impact on "other" folders could be more carefully considered,
The beta team does deserve a few "carrots" now and then for the work they do "behind the scenes", and I'm sure few would
begrudge the odd "perk" along the way...

derrickmcc wrote:

Jester wrote:If you want to play the ppd/$$ game the SR-2 is being devalued, as a modest pair of X58/hexcore Cpu systems will give similar production in ppd at less cost,
but isn't the whole idea of the Bigadv project and it's bonus points fast return times ?

Both the SR-2 and the X58/hexcore Cpu systems will have similar reductions in points for bigadv, so the SR-2 is not being devalued in that sense.The rationale for reducing the bigadv bonus is :

We would like to continue to offer a bonus for bigadv ..., but we don't want demand for bigadv to overwhelm the rest of the project or imbalance the points system.

If you read the original announcement in full: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=19059
you will see that PG are:

considering renormalizing other parts of the system but have not finalized decisions in that regard.

so bigadv is not the only class of WU that will be affected, it is just the first.

With the bonus multiplier based on return time staying the same and the base value being reduced ? hardly needs a calculator...

I'll wait to see what difference this makes before making sweeping statements.

I followed the whole of this 18-page discussion as it happened but felt no particular desire to comment. Does the silence mean I agreed with the need to change or that I didn't understand the need for the discussion in the first place? In fact it was the latter. If someone builds a machine that can get 1000000 ppd, why should I feel angry? Jealous, of course but angry?

I don't see why this needs to change. If folders with single-core machines are feeling devalued, why? Their contribution has never changed. They're doing the same science and getting the same points. If that science has become less useful because all the kewl stuff is being done with bigadv, they should be grateful the science they do hasn't been terminated.

noorman wrote:.

It 's more and more becoming a question of yield versus costs and no-one likes to get less for 'his money'.
The big commercial players in this world do enough of that day in day out.
Selling us stuff for the same price, but secretly lessening the amount of 'stuff' you get for it!
It 's hidden and many don't notice; F@H is openly, without wider consultation and ignoring polls on the issue, downgrading credits that have been there for a long time.
This is untimely.
It also doesn't take in to account the ever increasing costs (for donors) to run their systems, mainly the energy bills.
For that reason alone, things should be left as they were.
On top of those, there are the ever returning costs for hardware upgrades if one wants to keep up with 'progress'.
The donor is already 'paying' more for those credits than a year or 2 ago, solely with his higher power bills.
It 's because of expenses/costs that I had to quit F@H after 6 years of continuous Folding ...

This kind of degrading is discouraging, to say the least.

.

I disagree. FAH didn't change -- your perception has changed.

Buy a used 2.8GHz P4 and run it just like you did 5 years ago and you can still earn 110 PPD for the same power costs that you spent then. That's still part of the basic definition of what one point is worth. Buy 200 of them and the power it takes to run them and the power to cool your room and FAH will let you earn exactly 22K PPD just like you could when that hardware was new. What's not fair about that? In fact, you'd be getting a bargain if you consider what you'd be paying for that hardware compared to when it was new.

Now tell me how to reconcile that with the gripes about points in this topic.

bruce wrote:

noorman wrote:.

It 's more and more becoming a question of yield versus costs and no-one likes to get less for 'his money'.
The big commercial players in this world do enough of that day in day out.
Selling us stuff for the same price, but secretly lessening the amount of 'stuff' you get for it!
It 's hidden and many don't notice; F@H is openly, without wider consultation and ignoring polls on the issue, downgrading credits that have been there for a long time.
This is untimely.
It also doesn't take in to account the ever increasing costs (for donors) to run their systems, mainly the energy bills.
For that reason alone, things should be left as they were.
On top of those, there are the ever returning costs for hardware upgrades if one wants to keep up with 'progress'.
The donor is already 'paying' more for those credits than a year or 2 ago, solely with his higher power bills.
It 's because of expenses/costs that I had to quit F@H after 6 years of continuous Folding ...

This kind of degrading is discouraging, to say the least.

.

I disagree. FAH didn't change -- your perception has changed.

Buy a used 2.8GHz P4 and run it just like you did 5 years ago and you can still earn 110 PPD for the same power costs that you spent then. That's still part of the basic definition of what one point is worth. Buy 200 of them and the power it takes to run them and the power to cool your room and FAH will let you earn exactly 22K PPD just like you could when that hardware was new. What's not fair about that? In fact, you'd be getting a bargain if you consider what you'd be paying for that hardware compared to when it was new.

Now tell me how to reconcile that with the gripes about points in this topic.

I'd love to live where you do Bruce,
My power costs have risen per Kw/h close to 50% in the last three years alone....
My income ?, maybe 10% tops....