Folding Forum

It was brought to my attention ( viewtopic.php?p=254417#p254417 ) that at least http://folding.stanford.edu/home/faq/#ntoc37 could use some updating.

Before putting out any new work unit, we benchmark it on a dedicated 2.8GHz Pentium 4 machine with SSE2 disabled

definitely sounds obsolete, considering that currently active CPU FahCores require SSE2. Comments?

Also, the wording of "Before putting out any new work unit," could be changed to "Before putting out any new work," or "Before putting out any new project," (i.e. something that doesn't give new meaning to the term "work unit"). Thousands of "new work units" are created every day and they are obviously not each put through the benchmark process.

Depends on the official stance:
If FahCore_78 (or any FahCore which doesn't use SSE2) is deprecated, then that sentence can be updated.
If FahCore_78 (or any FahCore which doesn't use SSE2) might make a comeback, then that sentence should be clarified to indicate only certain Projects (not using SSE2) undergo this testing method.

Do they actually have a P4 lurking around in the first place, and are those formulae for base points and deadlines still valid? Or have they replaced it with a single core from the official i5 750 quadcore @2.67MHz benchmarking machine? Questions, questions...

See the Points FAQ for the most up to date info.

7im wrote:See the Points FAQ for the most up to date info.

That's not the point. You should have a single stance on any topic, especially that important.

I'm a lot more anal than most people, but that's my job .


That just means I report this sh1t. But I'm rarely, if ever, the first person to think about such things.

7im wrote:See the Points FAQ for the most up to date info.

http://folding.stanford.edu/home/faq/ is the 1st. FAQ any new users is likely to read since it's titled "Main FAQ" and also specifically marked "Start Here!". Having incorrect information in the main FAQ is therefore not a good idea, even the FAQ does point to the Points-FAQ for anyone wanting more information.

BTW, even worse is the point about "System Requirements"

A Pentium 3 450 MHz or newer equivalent computer (with SSE) is able to complete work units before they expire.

netblazer wrote:

7im wrote:See the Points FAQ for the most up to date info.

That's not the point. You should have a single stance on any topic, especially that important.

I'm a lot more anal than most people, but that's my job .


That just means I report this sh1t. But I'm rarely, if ever, the first person to think about such things.

Okay, you're new to the forum, and I wouldn't expect you to read between the lines like I would with RD. FYI, I am one of several people who help to update the FAQs. I do it when I have spare time in front of a PC, which isn't that often any more with smart phones (can't speak for the other editors). Editing large format pages on a 4 inch screen doesn't work that well.

7im wrote:See the Points FAQ for the most up to date info...

...until we have time to update the other page. As noted above, the Core_78 hasn't been officially deprecated yet, so the P3 450 still applies. The P4 benchmark does not.

I'm not trying to bash anybody. I started this thread because I care. As simple as that.

Obviously y'all do to or you wouldn't be wasting your time answering these repeated posts.

The last company I helped made over 1 B (that's 9 zeros) off my ideas (that I mostly took from their own staff, but retained from my future use).


#1 most effective change???

cleaned up the lines of communications. ALL OF THEM, To and from everybody.


There, you just cured cancer. Just a matter of time now!

I didn't take it as a bash, just a lack of info.

Rest assured, updating document requests are always taken seriously, if not always fixed timely.

Napoleon wrote:It was brought to my attention ( viewtopic.php?p=254417#p254417 ) that at least http://folding.stanford.edu/home/faq/#ntoc37 could use some updating.

Before putting out any new work unit, we benchmark it on a dedicated 2.8GHz Pentium 4 machine with SSE2 disabled

definitely sounds obsolete, considering that currently active CPU FahCores require SSE2. Comments?

Now this begs another rather big question. How did the points evolve over time? If a WU was worth 1 000 points 5 years ago, is it worth only 5* points now because the hardware has advanced leaps and bounds? That would definitely not seem fair (not saying it's the case). Equal work should be worth equal pay, regardless of the timeline. Newer hardware will make better PPD and much better PPW, but that's just life and equal for everybody.



* Yes the difference is that big. This laptop is roughly 5 years old and a whopping 200 times slower than a mid range i7 that is 1 year old, & stock speed.

Unfortunately, they did not write a history of points FAQ. But the old timers can tell you that each of the big benchmark revisions were based on the performance of the previous benchmark. The various FAQs touch on that in places, but it has not been laid out a, b, c, etc., on one single page.

P3 500Mhz Celeron, to P4 2.8 GHz with SSE2 disabled (to match the lack of SSE2 on the Celeron), to the current i5 750.

GPUs went from an ATI X1900, to a GTX 480, to a GTX 460, now to the same i5 750 as the CPU benchmark.

7im wrote:Okay, you're new to the forum, and I wouldn't expect you to read between the lines like I would with RD. FYI, I am one of several people who help to update the FAQs. I do it when I have spare time in front of a PC, which isn't that often any more with smart phones (can't speak for the other editors). Editing large format pages on a 4 inch screen doesn't work that well.

I'm only running FAH during the yearly Christmas-race, so I'm blissfully ignorant about whatever happens with FAH and these forums for atleast 10 months/year. Not remembering who is updating the FAQs is a side-effect of this.

According to all the information that I have, if you allocate the equivalent of a 450 MHz P3 to a CPU-based WU, you still should get exactly the same BASELINE points. The most significant change that you're asking about is the QRB which increases the points by a variable factor based on how quickly you complete the WU. The bonus is very important and it represents a effective increase in points that's quite significant.

Of course once everybody gets used to getting more points, they see it as "normal" and perceive that the original points are/were way too low.