Folding Forum

I was interested in significance of single socket machines for -bigadv folding and it's share in % ?
If someone from PG or admin/mod can disclose those numbers, if can be taken out from statistics, or give a rough estimate, it would be nice.

To be honest, I wanted a proof, for some disbelievers, that there is a significance in all our efforts.
I was looking at -bigadv results, both a2 and a3, and there are some seriously fast 4c/8t rigs. Now with i7 980X there is even more power in single socket systems, taking over 2, 4 and even 8 socket systems.
I hope I'm not wrong giving an optimistic estimate of 80%, but I won't be discouraged to fold with my OC'd rig even if it's less then significant.

EDIT: After a small discussion, this became a poll. So, everybody feel free to check all machines you are using for -bigadv folding. All suggestions are welcome.

@"FARMERS" : Post your farm's specs if you don't mind (no obligation). I recommend posting specs, cause I'll collect all farm entries and add 'em up and display numbers here.

Bruce had posted in another thread that the client can't distinguish between 8 real cores or 4 real cores + 4 virtual ones, it only sees 8 cores either way.

Now if there is actual data that show otherwise I too would be interested in it.

For starters, you can use my data to help you estimate how many Windows bigadv users are there. You could also view this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 70#p131077 and this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 14#p110479 to see how many bigadv there are in total (its a best guess)

PantherX wrote:For starters, you can use my data to help you estimate how many Windows bigadv users are there. You could also view this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 70#p131077 and this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 14#p110479 to see how many bigadv there are in total (its a best guess)

That data is for A2's which are no longer available and also from those who bothered to post their system specs and frame times. It’s probably wouldn’t be a good estimation of what was actually being used to fold –bigadv with.

I would think that the data from A3’s would be more pertinent to the question at hand.

I would agree but those system were contributing to bigadv since the trial started and it would make sense (to me at least) to include them as most if not all would continue to fold bigadv either by converting their systems to WIndows or when the Linux bigadv is made available. Also it would give a wide range of CPUs used in the original trial and how has that changed over the course.

orion wrote:Bruce had posted in another thread that the client can't distinguish between 8 real cores or 4 real cores + 4 virtual ones, it only sees 8 cores either way.

Now if there is actual data that show otherwise I too would be interested in it.

I know, but with some filtering of statistical data, it can be done. Maybe not precise, but I think it can. It is easy to filter out all those 4 and 8 socket systems, even 2 sockets/8 cores/16 threads. All that is left are 2 socket/8 core/8 threads systems, cause they can't be distinguished from i7's, but that could fall under statistical error.
No offense, but I was thinking of you when mentioning "disbelievers".

PantherX wrote:For starters, you can use my data to help you estimate how many Windows bigadv users are there. You could also view this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 70#p131077 and this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 14#p110479 to see how many bigadv there are in total (its a best guess)

I did. By your data there is over 80% of single socket folders.
I also considered Grandpa_01's list, but I need more time to do statistics.

In the mean time, there is one thing to be noted (not you PantherX, disbelievers ): fastest i7 (4c/8t) is faster then 39 multi socket systems, and there is only 7 multi sock.sys. faster then the fastest 980X.

EDIT:

PantherX wrote:I would agree but those system were contributing to bigadv since the trial started and it would make sense (to me at least) to include them as most if not all would continue to fold bigadv either by converting their systems to WIndows or when the Linux bigadv is made available. Also it would give a wide range of CPUs used in the original trial and how has that changed over the course.

+1

DonMarkoni wrote:

orion wrote:Bruce had posted in another thread that the client can't distinguish between 8 real cores or 4 real cores + 4 virtual ones, it only sees 8 cores either way.

Now if there is actual data that show otherwise I too would be interested in it.

I know, but with some filtering of statistical data, it can be done. Maybe not precise, but I think it can. It is easy to filter out all those 4 and 8 socket systems, even 2 sockets/8 cores/16 threads. All that is left are 2 socket/8 core/8 threads systems, cause they can't be distinguished from i7's, but that could fall under statistical error.
No offense, but I was thinking of you when mentioning "disbelievers".

No offence taken but a more realistic word would be skeptic

PantherX wrote:For starters, you can use my data to help you estimate how many Windows bigadv users are there. You could also view this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 70#p131077 and this: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f ... 14#p110479 to see how many bigadv there are in total (its a best guess)

I did. By your data there is over 80% of single socket folders.
I also considered Grandpa_01's list, but I need more time to do statistics.

In the mean time, there is one thing to be noted (not you PantherX, disbelievers ): fastest i7 (4c/8t) is faster then 39 multi socket systems, and there is only 7 multi sock.sys. faster then the fastest 980X.

If I had a pocket full of Dinar's and pulled out eight 1 dinar coins and two 5 dinar coins I could guess that the rest of the dinars in my pocket statistically would be the same, but I want the hard numbers. I would pull all the coins out and count them then I'd exactly what I had and not guess at it. But getting back to your data I would want to use it to if I were you to prove my point though it being at best a guesstimation. Remember when the –bigadv first started PG was doing it under the radar with some donors with big server farms, your guess is as good as mine would be on what they were using. And I don’t think that they were single socket i7’s.

EDIT:

PantherX wrote:I would agree but those system were contributing to bigadv since the trial started and it would make sense (to me at least) to include them as most if not all would continue to fold bigadv either by converting their systems to WIndows or when the Linux bigadv is made available. Also it would give a wide range of CPUs used in the original trial and how has that changed over the course.

+1

Still not a true representation of what was used. I never posted my 4p results, so there would be one not counted. But fill free to use the data as you fill free to do.

Besides I don’t think that that data was ever intended to show that there were more i7’s doing –bigadv than 2p or 4p systems. I believe that the OP wanted to find out how fast a certain system makeup could fold. But that’s my take on it, yours is different.

I respect your opinions, but will stick to mine.

So, now we wait for some official response.

In the mean time, keep on folding!

How about official record:

These 645 million points were all recorded on muti-socket -bigadv machines.

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... =&u=460688

For I7 to generate 80% of the work done, they would have had to generate what? 3.2 billion additional points.

Still, I would be interested in seeing the official break-down also.

mdk777 wrote:How about official record:

These 645 million points were all recorded on muti-socket -bigadv machines.

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... =&u=460688

For I7 to generate 80% of the work done, they would have had to generate what? 3.2 billion additional points.

Still, I would be interested in seeing the official break-down also.

I am pretty sure you can remove PDC and Anonymous from the stats and be fairly close. But judging by the amount of WU's PDC has returned and the amount of points received They are doing a Bigadv WU with time frames of 30min 11sec on Avg for an avg of 60711 points.

Grandpa_01 wrote:

mdk777 wrote:How about official record:

These 645 million points were all recorded on muti-socket -bigadv machines.

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... =&u=460688

For I7 to generate 80% of the work done, they would have had to generate what? 3.2 billion additional points.

Still, I would be interested in seeing the official break-down also.

I am pretty sure you can remove PDC and Anonymous from the stats and be fairly close. But judging by the amount of WU's PDC has returned and the amount of points received They are doing a Bigadv WU with time frames of 30min 11sec on Avg for an avg of 60711 points.

I don't know why they should be removed. Clearly they do the work and should be counted.

This isn't like a survey that can be skewed to read what outcome that the taker wants.

I am pretty sure you can remove PDC and Anonymous from the stats and be fairly close.

I'm not following you. PDC was the donor that originated the -bigadv WU.

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=12058&p=117859&hilit=pdc#p117860

The question of the OP is how much of the WU of -bigadv were done by I7 verse other 2 and 4 socket machines.

excluding PDC would be pointless.

It would be like asking what percentage of the total fund someone donated to the Melinda Gates foundation;( excluding Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.)

mdk777 wrote:How about official record:

These 645 million points were all recorded on muti-socket -bigadv machines.

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... =&u=460688

For I7 to generate 80% of the work done, they would have had to generate what? 3.2 billion additional points.

Still, I would be interested in seeing the official break-down also.

645M points is 160 people and me (making 161) working 19 weeks (less then 5 months) on -bigadv, if you take 60k points per WU. It's easily done.
80% is around 2.6M not 3.2M (it is 100%), making it 644 people folding in the same time span, or 161 working year and a half. Is it that hard?
I am too interested in official stats. My question in the OP was intended for officials.

About PDC, no need to remove them from the stats in question. My rig is averaging more then 60711, and my last WU was around 66400 points, and I'm financing it all alone.

Don you now that starting a thread like this is going to bring in people with different opinions than yours. If you wanted the info from PG than you should have sent one them a PM for it, not asked the question in open forum. It maybe some super secret info they don’t what out in the wild.

You can go back and reread my first response to your question. Bruce has said that the client can’t tell the difference. If the client can tell the difference then there is now reason for an x6 not to fold bigadv unless PG doesn’t want them to and right now they don't or ever will

You've been running -bigadv since February? That's great and thank you for your contribution to F@H!

I've been running them since November...well until last month when the LINUX client crashed. All bought and paid for by yours truly too

I guess yall should throw in all my bigadv rigs I never posted to this board?