Optimized clients

[ladypcer]

I kind of thought that at first too, Bok. Like using flag optimizations in F@H, but it was explained to me that in F@H, running flags makes your cpu crunch better (via SSE2, etc), but in Boinc (windows), all it does is inflate the benchmark and does nothing to really make your cpu run the program better or faster, so you're just claiming a higher bench, but not doing any extra work.

It would be one thing if everyone ran the optimized version, everyone would be on an even footing.

Maybe it would be better if they just gave xxx credit for each finished wu, and forgot the benchmarks altogether.

I know that some programs are asking users NOT to run the optimized Windows version because it skews the credits/results.

I'm still up in the air on it, and waiting for the projects input on the matter.

[EvoDude]

So what you're saying is that it is thought to be unfair that someone with a faster PC running an optimised client shouldn't be allowed to claim extra credit, despite the fact that they are already doing more work.

At DC projects like WCG for instance any PC running 24/7 can achieve 960 points per day regardless of the throughput. If this is the case we would all be better to just buy old slow cheap rigs and do very little work while picking up loads of points. Kinda defeats the aim of getting the work done. Or am I still reading this situation wrong?

[ladypcer]

I think their point is that you are not actually doing more work. You are seeing higher credit due to an inflated benchmark, not due to extra work processed.
At least that was how I understood it.

I'm not judging you or any others, I'm just trying to explain what was told to me, and why others perceive running optimized windows boinc as "cheating".

Oh, I agree with you about slow pc's getting big points because of the time it takes them to run a wu. It doesn't seem right to me either.
Like I said, they just need to give wu's a certain point structure and award points by "finished" work.

[Marky-UK]

An optimised BOINC client can be useful when the project is using optimised software too. SETI@home is probably the most (in)famous in this respect - if you're running an optimised SETI@home client you also need an optimised BOINC client to stop claiming lower credit for a WU than an average PC would.

Other projects are, I think, rumoured to have at least some optimisations in them. I've heard that Einstein@home has some, and have heard talk about some other projects too.

If a project is using optimisations, and the standard BOINC client doesn't, this will cause processors which support the optimisations to claim less credit than processors which don't. An optimised BOINC client levels things up a bit.

Just my 2p anyway...

[EvoDude]

I think their point is that you are not actually doing more work. You are seeing higher credit due to an inflated benchmark, not due to extra work processed.
At least that was how I understood it.

I'm not judging you or any others, I'm just trying to explain what was told to me, and why others perceive running optimized windows boinc as "cheating".

Oh, I agree with you about slow pc's getting big points because of the time it takes them to run a wu. It doesn't seem right to me either.
Like I said, they just need to give wu's a certain point structure and award points by "finished" work.

Thanks ladypcer. You've hit the nail right on the head I think. When projects get round to attaching scores to work throughput then we will all be on a level playing field.

In the end the scores don't matter so much as the level of contribution to the science we each choose to assist. The points just make life interesting while we do it.

Thanks to all contributers here for an informative debate on the subject.

[Paladin*]

Right now it's nothing but a big sham over @ the Rosetta Project with the Credits. I quit running the Project when I started seeing Host's getting over 2000 Credits for 1 3 hour WU & other Hosts averaging between 400-500 Credits per hour of processing ... I figured whats the point ...

[ladypcer]

I decided to run eOn, DPAD and WCG for now, with a little Climate thrown in.
Now all I need is for eOn to quit sleeping, and DPAD to connect to server to send results.

[Angus]

I decided to run eOn, DPAD and WCG for now, with a little Climate thrown in.
Now all I need is for eOn to quit sleeping, and DPAD to connect to server to send results.

There's a manualsend.bat in the DPAD folder that will force the upload if your results.txt file is over 10K in size.

Otherwise - it seems to have a mind of it's own for sending.

[Jkusuda]

What is the recommended optimized client I should be using for my 4800x2 under WinXP? A couple of the sites listed in this thread don't work. I'm thinking my benchmarks are too low.

Measured floating point speed 2298.2 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 4238.48 million ops/sec

Thanks

[(_KoDAk_)]

C2D have
3241 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
7158 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
)))