Folding Forum

Hehe, alter-egos. Intriguing, but no.

v00d00 wrote: So how much did Ford pay you to come here and stir up some trouble by trolling? How many beers was it?

Funny how you registered and posted only on this thread. I wonder if you and Ford are one and the same person.

No, they are not the same person. Don't know about the other part...


Guru, when you start self proclaiming absolute certainties for your side of the discussion, then I know you are trying to defend what you don't understand, the same way you do not understand the differences between GPUs and CPUs. It shows desperation.

But hey, don't let a little ignorance get in your way of flaming on in this thread. But your arguments might become more persuasive if you educated yourself a little more about computing hardware and performance, and then checked out more fah performance data than you will know what to do with...

http://fahinfo.org
http://gpu.fahinfo.org

Nice, you both dodged the logic behind what I said and instead flamed me... I guess that's all you can do, since I'm right...

Cheers!

lol Guru you just proved 7im's point

Guru wrote:Nice, you both dodged the logic behind what I said and instead flamed me... I guess that's all you can do, since I'm right...

Cheers!

Arguing is like the special olympics, even if you think you win, you are still retarded.

That's why people stopped bothering with this debate, me included.

FordGT90Concept,

Why the sudden importance now? The PS3 client has had the same affect for almost the last 2 years!
The GPU is now running at 4 X the PS3, but the PS3 generated 5X the CPU for something like 2 years.
Your arguments did not make sense before, and they don't now.

edited for accuracy .

@mdk777 the PS3 client was only released march 2007 (so its only 17 months), but otherwise I agree with you.

My how time flys when you're having fun!

Xilikon wrote:

Guru wrote:Nice, you both dodged the logic behind what I said and instead flamed me... I guess that's all you can do, since I'm right...

Cheers!

Arguing is like the special olympics, even if you think you win, you are still retarded.

That's why people stopped bothering with this debate, me included.

You're arguing, so that must make you one of the retards according to your own clever logic...

If you stopped bothering with the debate, why are you still posting? 0.o

Does anyone want to discuss the solution, or are you all about just flaming, even if you have to resort to petty insults??

mdk777 wrote:FordGT90Concept,

Why the sudden importance now? The PS3 client has had the same affect for almost the last 2 years!
The GPU is now running at 4 X the PS3, but the PS3 generated 5X the CPU for something like 2 years.
Your arguments did not make sense before, and they don't now.

edited for accuracy .

It isn't like it just became broken recently... Perhaps you would like to look at all of the other threads that debate this? It became broken when the software was optimized to take advantage of the GPUs, but the scoring system wasn't optimized along with the software... I can give countless analogies of how broken that is, but what's the point? People should be implementing the solution I came up with in order to appeal to a much larger market... Why make just a certain elitist group happy when a solution can be implemented to make everyone happy? It's not that complicated of a concept, nor is it difficult to implement...

John Naylor wrote:lol Guru you just proved 7im's point

What point is that?

LOL Oh, I bet I know!

7im wrote:But hey, don't let a little ignorance get in your way of flaming on in this thread.

He's not letting his ignorance get in the way of his flaming! I get it.

You know what's really stupid? These posts hold more information with the flames than the data that would need to be held in order to show a fair comparison of hardware... It's too bad that people would rather waste more storage on arguing about the necessary solution instead of implementing a solution.

t isn't like it just became broken recently...

Yes this was indeed my point. The fact is that this debate started sometime around the start of the industrial revolution.
Those new machines devalue the worker!

The entire Teamster Union started because the oil companies started shipping by Rail instead of on horse draw wagons!
(I'm not making this up)
The guys that worked the horse teams (teamsters) didn't think they should lose wages just because it was 1000 X easier(really, 100 cars in a train,each 10x the size) and faster(35-40 mph even in 1900 as compared to 5mph for horse) to move oil on rail cars than it was by single large wooden drums on a wagon.

Looking back, one can hardly believe that anyone would make the argument that the industrial revolution should halt in order to avoid displacing horse cart workers; yet this is exactly what was wanted.

In the exact same way, you argue that just because the GPU can accomplish 100X folding of the average cpu, cpu workers should not be displaced! Their work should be valued the same regardless of their production.

This Luddite view of technology attracts supporters in labor movements, but is not generally supported in technology research projects.

Guru wrote: It's too bad that people would rather waste more storage on arguing about the necessary solution instead of implementing a solution.

Yes, it *is* too bad you have wasted our time. You have tried to prove that you knew better than the professors and students of one of the top Universities in the U.S., plus the combined efforts of thousands of donors who are computer engineers, yet cannot accept that you have failed.

Some of us are here because we have family members who are dying, or have died, of incurable diseases. Your attitude of entitlement is insulting to everyone involved. Unless you would like to visit your local hospital's cancer ward and explain to everyone that their cure will have to wait a little bit longer, so you can change the system to suit your own personal needs, then leave this project now. By your own reasoning, we'll instantly replace you with a GPU anyway.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

mdk777 wrote:Why the sudden importance now? The PS3 client has had the same affect for almost the last 2 years!
The GPU is now running at 4 X the PS3, but the PS3 generated 5X the CPU for something like 2 years.
Your arguments did not make sense before, and they don't now.

I brought it up now because I saw 11 processors getting raped by a single 8800 GTS. The owner of the GTS is not pleased with this (he's thinking about switching to BOINC), nor am I. So I came here to get some answers, make some suggestions, and ultimately decide what course of action I will take (stay or switch to BOINC too). At this point, I haven't made up my mind.

FordGT90Concept wrote: I brought it up now because I saw 11 processors getting raped by a single 8800 GTS. The owner of the GTS is not pleased with this (he's thinking about switching to BOINC), nor am I. So I came here to get some answers, make some suggestions, and ultimately decide what course of action I will take (stay or switch to BOINC too). At this point, I haven't made up my mind.

Would switching to a BOINC project be any better? They use the same basic scoring system as FAH. It's 100 points/day on a computer that scores 1000 on Whetstone and Dhrystone. This is just another kind of benchmark machine. It doesn't emphasize the time donation factor you're looking for. Indeed, it seems inevitable that if anybody should invent a GPGPU BOINC client, they'll have GPUs crunching out WUs left and right, hundreds of times faster. Then what?