Amd

[LAURENU2]

AMD is the best for FAD
Look I have done more jobs and found more hits then anyone since 5/1/05
And the AMD chips did it in the same or less time


Rank name Mem Num ==GFlops=== Jobs ==Hits ==Molecules Days Explain
LAURENU2 ===7010499 =8031392= 547 =29668 =5440296 267.54
msmadiso ===7002514= 2597056= 501 =12534 =895587 122.38
PY 222 =====7013544=10961968 =401 =15624 =3946074 363.35
mondobyte ==7009574 =5083592 =347 =7351 =3371950 226.66
Plum Ugly ===7000588 =6292504 =341 =11049 =3333157 202.77

[Scoofy12]

OTOH, FAD does well with SMT (hyperthreading). my 3.4GHz HT work machine had a rating of about 205 with one thread, but it pulls two copies with about 130 each.

[LAURENU2]

It is the OS that gives other members more points per hr
If you look in the FAD stats from May 1st you can start to understand
if you change the view to GFlops Jobs Hits Molecules Days

http://stats.findadrug.org.uk/stats1...=100&Period=12

[rsbriggs]

FADSpy has some interesting charts, things like CPU time versus points - the AMDs consistently return more points with less CPU time, and have a lower seconds-per-point than the Intels.

But, since 1/2 or more of my pharm is Intel-based, I run it on both. You do what you can with what you have...

In my book, the Intels have reasonable performance, and I find running multiple copies on HT chips nets me similar performance to the AMDs.

For example, my 3200+ AMD Athlon64 shows that it produces at 16 seconds per point when I view its stats in FADSpy. Each of the two virtual processors on the 3.0 Ghz HT Intel shows at 33 seconds per point - making the overall performance of the chip 33/2 or 16.5 seconds per point.