Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 54 of 54

Thread: Client SPEED enhancement

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Jersey USA
    Posts
    115
    Some quick and dirty tests show some interesting results I think.
    Both systems using W2k, client switches -df -qt -g 100 -it
    3 hour runs stopped and rerun

    Both using -rt
    AMD 1700xp @1463 82100/day
    Intl P4 1.6a @1.6 65500/day

    Both using -rf
    AMD 1700xp @1463 42000/day
    Intl P4 1.6a @1.6 43000/day

    Previous protein
    AMD 1700xp@1463 118000/day
    Intl P4 1.6a@1.6 132000/day

    Note the larger gain using -rt with the AMD
    Anybody else see this?

    AMD users be happy I guess.


    P4 users

  2. #42
    Vorlon Ambassador to F-DC Kosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    88
    What type of RAM are you using with the P4?

    I've noticed that my boxes with sdram aren't keeping up with my single () ddr box.

  3. #43
    The P4 is *really* crippled by memory bandwidth in just about everything.

    The 533 DDR is better - the RD800 is MUCH better - but I've not profiled in DF - just in compiling and in video compression/image processing.

    We've done substantial profiling in real-world applications for 4th gen settop boxes.

    From web-surfing to video compression/decompression, realtime image processing, rich-text editing - you know - the kinda stuff you would do with a computer-vis-television... The P4 just gets its little booty stomped by the AMD in ever conceivable way... (yes - that's SSE2 versus SSE on the AMD. We've not optimized to 3DNow2 yet)

    The depressing thing is that the P3/512k often humiliates a northwood...

  4. #44
    Very interesting I was just going to post a message about my observations with the P4 and the new speed increase.

    All my P3 machines seemed to have doubled in speed with the new RAM option. But my P4 (1.5 GHz) using RDRAM (PC800) went from 40413 structs/day with -rf to 60909 struct/day with -rt so only about a 50% increase in speed.

    Jeff.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Jersey USA
    Posts
    115
    Sorry, the memory on both systems was DDR, P4 was CL2.
    As for the P4 being crippled, see the numbers from the previous protein, quite respectable vs 1700xp yes?( and I don't need a screamer fan and 10ton airconditioner to keep it cool).
    Don't want to start a cpu war here just wanted to see if anyone else saw this or just my systems or if there was/is a problem.
    It seems Jeff is seeing the same thing, only 50% increase with P4.

  6. #46
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montréal PQ canada
    Posts
    14
    Willeben
    yes ,now my AMD tbred 2200 @1880 whit fonction -rt is more quickly of my p4@2652mhz.
    Last edited by baja27; 07-24-2002 at 05:30 PM.
    Franc-O-Bec
    29 top 1000
    Approx 35.000MHZ

  7. #47
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    27
    Using the -rt switch on the latest protein, I can fold 33,000 proteins in one day.

    I am running a Power Mac G4 with a PowerPC 7400 chip clocked at 466 MHz. I have 384 MB of RAM.
    Derek

  8. #48
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    27
    Is it just me, or is this new protein a bit slower ?
    Derek

  9. #49
    Fixer of Broken Things FoBoT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Holden MO
    Posts
    2,137
    s l o w e r
    Use the right tool for the right job!

  10. #50

    Question Any Follow-up?

    Just was wondering if this ever panned out.

  11. #51

    Question Any Follow-up?

    Just was wondering if this ever panned out.

  12. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Kodiak, Alaska
    Posts
    432
    Yep.. we got a client that you can turn the "use extra ram" switch on, and if you have at least 256Megs, it puts it to use, and folds almost twice as fast as the client without the switch.

    That's why we were all running around adding extra ram to our machines...

  13. #53
    Fixer of Broken Things FoBoT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Holden MO
    Posts
    2,137
    actually, depending on the OS and how you use the box, you don't really need 256MB

    if you run a "lite" OS, like many linux versions or Windows 95/98 on boxes with 128MB AND it is just a cruncher (nobody useing the computer for non-DC stuff) then the -rt switch can also be successfully employed for 2X production

    Windows XP is too fat, even if the box is only a DC cruncher, there isn't enough of the 128MB left over to use -rt
    Use the right tool for the right job!

  14. #54
    Target Butt IronBits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Morrisville, NC
    Posts
    8,619
    I belive the rule of thumb is 96mb for the OS (w2k/XP) +8mb per application you want open all at the same time... with only 128mb, you barely have enough for the basics...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •