I run them as is out of the box and don't try to over-clock. Something about a fetish for accurate results ... :)

Of course there are any number of people that seem to think I am an idiot to be for quality results rather than faster results regardless of quality ... a handicap to be sure ...

Of course, if I did over-clock and push limits I could have an earnings of 38,476,068 by now ... oh, wait, I do have an earnings total of 38,476,068 ... :)

Same here, stock speeds. Another advantage of not overclocking GPUs is that from all accounts the failure rate is quite a bit lower on cards running at stock speeds. Unlike CPUs most video cards are designed for intermittent peak usage, not continuous peak usage. Interesting thread over at GPUGRID for those that haven't seen it:

Video Card Longevity:
http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=651#5638

Never mind the question; upgrading to optimized code 20 increased the speed to 54secs per WU...

I am running 69 Secs per 53-credit MW WU, application version 0.19g and with the 8.12 driver on a stock 4870, on 32-bit Win XP.
Do I have HW or SW 'issue'?

SW. Download the latest 0.20 optimised app. It will reduce your crunch times by near on 20 seconds/wu.

Interesting -- seems I fit a similar self-designated category. I don't have the GPU cards to run GPU here -- I run a lot of CPU's here. My GPU work is with GPUGrid and increasingly Collatz as they support my low end cards and embedded ATI GPU's.

But I also spin CPU cycles for Spinhenge, Climate, POEM, Malaria, Einstein, SETI, WorldGrid and Rosetta.

I have shifted a bit from low paying projects -- Rosetta in particular.

But by and large I tend to support projects of interest.

On the contrary Ice. I was implying that I'm a credit whore and will only crunch projects that give me good credit....except for Malaria Control, oh and LHC (when they have work), oh and some PrimeGrid.

I suppose I'm implying that if Collatz does not give as good credit as MW I will only crunch it on my GPU(s) if MW has no work.....

---

Interesting -- seems I fit a similar self-designated category. I don't have the GPU cards to run GPU here -- I run a lot of CPU's here. My GPU work is with GPUGrid and increasingly Collatz as they support my low end cards and embedded ATI GPU's.

Well, MW on my ATI cards is just under a minute and pay is 53, Collatz is about 10 minutes with the latest application (thanks Gispel) and pays 540 or there about ... sounds about the same to me ... at least for the ATI GPU ...

For those that are competitive, and which of us is not ... I mean, just about everyone has some sport or activity where competition enters in that they follow ... and BOINC is no exception ... my gut instinct says that for more than a few of us that eventually there is this natural "pull" from some projects because they just don't pay as well as others ...

Interesting -- seems I fit a similar self-designated category. I don't have the GPU cards to run GPU here -- I run a lot of CPU's here. My GPU work is with GPUGrid and increasingly Collatz as they support my low end cards and embedded ATI GPU's.

Well, MW on my ATI cards is just under a minute and pay is 53, Collatz is about 10 minutes with the latest application (thanks Gispel) and pays 540 or there about ... sounds about the same to me ... at least for the ATI GPU ...

For those that are competitive, and which of us is not ... I mean, just about everyone has some sport or activity where competition enters in that they follow ... and BOINC is no exception ... my gut instinct says that for more than a few of us that eventually there is this natural "pull" from some projects because they just don't pay as well as others ...

...and then there are those of us who have no way to "compete" on such a grand scale that we just merely run what we want to run, and are getting a bit fed up with the complaining about how the competitive users feel shafted, while the reality is that the credit cut only affected them for as long as they used .19 instead of .20...

Spinhenge is a 'moderate' pay project, as is POEM -- both of those projects don't have message boards of interest (though that is as much a function of both projects being based in Germany so their more active boards are in German), but those two projects are looking into science of interest to me AND they have been particularly reliable during the long run (attached to Spinhenge over two years ago, and POEM 11 months ago). Also, they don't mess with credits like some projects we may know.

For those that are competitive, and which of us is not ... I mean, just about everyone has some sport or activity where competition enters in that they follow ... and BOINC is no exception ... my gut instinct says that for more than a few of us that eventually there is this natural "pull" from some projects because they just don't pay as well as others ...

---

I can understand that -- the thing is though, what often enough happens here is a running credit game -- credits get cut, then a revised optimized application is available to 'compensate'. I know that the deal is the revised applications process the data more efficiently and this is a good thing.

Here though, the credit revisions are based on a sense of 'over reward' based on the optimized applications. There might be a bit less of the chatter if the optimized applications were the standard applications.

Not that big a deal for me these days, as unlike as recently as a few months ago when MW represented half of my weekly credit haul, now it is less than a sixth of my weekly totals. Much of that is the GPU support over on GPUGrid and even more so now with Collatz.

I've been increasing the share on the CPU side to my 'tried and true' projects (particularly Spinhenge, POEM and Einstein) -- and that has been a factor in my reduced 'dependence' on MW as well.

Thinking about it though, one kind of expected to see the progressive credit modification action here in part because of the way MW got 'in the crosshairs' by the very large numbers it began to generate over a year ago. As the optimized applications got broader distribution, and as the ATI optimized application was developed, that simply kept up the pressure on credit modification over the intervening months.

...and then there are those of us who have no way to "compete" on such a grand scale that we just merely run what we want to run, and are getting a bit fed up with the complaining about how the competitive users feel shafted, while the reality is that the credit cut only affected them for as long as they used .19 instead of .20...

---

Spinhenge is a 'moderate' pay project, as is POEM -- both of those projects don't have message boards of interest (though that is as much a function of both projects being based in Germany so their more active boards are in German), but those two projects are looking into science of interest to me AND they have been particularly reliable during the long run (attached to Spinhenge over two years ago, and POEM 11 months ago). Also, they don't mess with credits like some projects we may know.

POEM 173,112
Spinhenge 109,734

Even though they are not "focus" projects for me ... I agree that they both have merit and were I not concentrating on WCG for blue colored badges (2 down, several to go) my numbers there would still be rising ... heck, I am usually rising on all projects issuing work ... :)

Well, within the limits of BOINC's ability to balance workloads ...

Then again, I think almost all projects have merit and deserve some "love" ... :)