Actually i just saw the problem why they're running the same ;( While the astronomy_parameters file the assimilator was reading was changed, the sticky one in the download directory wasn't. I don't know if there's too much i can do about the WUs already generated with less credit, but the new ones should award the correct amount.

Doesn't make any difference in the ones already generated. You've found the problem and its fixed. That's the important thing. <Smile>

This is like comparing apples, oranges and peaches. Each may be similar in size, but are nothing alike.

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

I'm running a Lemon, guess I"m outta luck. :-p

---

I'm running a Lemon, guess I"m outta luck. :-p

When life gives you lemons...

---

Please use "Reply" or "Quote" buttons on posts, instead of "reply to this thread". Keep the posts linked together ("X is a reply to Y").

I am a lemon, grumpy and bitter.

I am seeing the same, but these will crunch and pass.

I'm running a Lemon, guess I"m outta luck. :-p

When life gives you lemons...

BLOW THOSE LEMONS TO BITS WITH YOUR LASER CANNONS!

---

Where's the link to download those Laser Cannons?

---

I'm running a Lemon, guess I"m outta luck. :-p

When life gives you lemons...

BLOW THOSE LEMONS TO BITS WITH YOUR LASER CANNONS!

I'd rather you give me 100 billion credits. For free. No strings attached. No client attached. No emotional attachments.

---

me@rescam.org

It seems no one has ever watched the brak show :(

---

I'd rather you give me 100 billion credits.

Written by...Misfit
Produced by...Misfit
Sound by...Misfit
color by...Misfit
drawn by...Misfit
Starring...Misfit

That's 6. Shall I continue? (only 99,999,999,994 to go)

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

Or is this what you want?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11100840@N02/2608966438/

(not my pic)

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

Or is this what you want?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11100840@N02/2608966438/

(not my pic)

Yep. credits@home, here I come.

---

Meh, I'd rather have some credits transferred to my card, if you know what I mean. I'm in need of some computer repairs after that last Primegrid challenge...

It can be hard to catch results around here (and I still haven’t gotten my, er, act together regarding automated BOINC data collection), so I have more a general impression than hard data … Anyway, the credit production per unit time from my Macs, both PPC and Core2, appears to be about the same with MW@h Optimized vv0.3–0.6 as it was with MW@h v1.2. This rate is (and has been) somewhat more than double the hosts’ benchmark-based or nominal productivity—or what they get from Einstein@home—in fact it’s very similar to Alex Kan’s optimized SETI@home apps. Early indications from MWO v0.7 are that it’s earning a good 10% more than previously, on both CPU types.

---

OK -- a couple of sets for you

AMD 9600 overclocked to 12.5*200MHz (ie from 2.3G to 2.5G)
Milkyway -- 47.8 credits/hour (using the 42.34 and 39.85 credit work units -- they run 3180 and 3010 seconds (plus or minus a bit of course).
SETI -- unoptimized client 19.5 credits an hour.
POEM -- 25 to 30 credits an hour
Spinhenge -- 16.2 credits/hour
Rosetta -- 12.2 credits/hour
Einstein - 16.5 credits/hour


AMD 9850 overclocked to 13.5 x 200MHz (ie from 2.5G to 2.7G)
Milkyway -- 50.7 credits/hour
SETI -- optimized client 40.8 credits/hour.
POEM -- 30 to 40 credits/hour
Spinhenge - 16.8 credits.hour

I figure that is a reasonable mark and should keep Dave Anderson off of your back. Comparing to the optimized client seems reasonable as their optimized client is readily available.

Oh, and note, both the Einstein and SETI work units yield significant higher credits per cycle with Intel processors -- not sure of the other applications.

In as much as before the optimized client here was released the standard application credit numbers were between 80 and 100 per hour (and the optimized client when run under the same credit scheme was simply off the chart) the current credits seem quite reasonable.

And now on to everybody's favorite subject :)

Since we've moved over to the new app, I'm wondering how everyones credit rate compares to seti@home (which we'll be trying to use as a benchmark).

update: comparison to other projects (like einstein@home) is also very welcome. we want to keep credit generation here similar to other boinc projects.

---

Ok, my two pence worth.

On a bog standard Intel dual core @ 2.13 GHz, Windows XP, 4 G RAM, the projects that I've crunched this year give the following credits an hour per core.

Seti - 41 optimised client
Cosmology - 39
QMC - 36
Milkyway - 33 optimised client
Milkyway - 30 'old' client
PrimeGrid - 18 - 29 depending on sub project
Poem - 24
ABC - 22
Enigma - 20 optimised client
Einstein - 20
Magnetism - 16
NQueens - 14

Bearing in mind that I haven't run some of the projects for a couple of months and the rate may have changed, the optimised client returns slightly more than the old client for Milkway but still less than the optimised client for Seti. I don't have any data for the stock client on Seti as I haven't used that recently.

Looks to me that it's about right at the moment even if it's more than the Seti stock client.

Looks to me that it's about right at the moment even if it's more than the Seti stock client.

I think this comment is relevant.

Stock client credit output should be compared to stock client, and optimised to optimised. No shout of "unfair" should be given credence if comparing optimised client to a stock client, even though for MW the optimised client is the stock client.

As I said earlier, I think the credit given is about right and time need to be given for things to settle for a few weeks. After then the credit can be reviewed (and amended), if this should be needed.

Thanks for that -- I thought that SETI applications were 'happier' with Intel -- your numbers regarding the optimized SETI client providing higher numbers than Milkyway suggests that is the case. With my AMD's the reverse is true.

On a bog standard Intel dual core @ 2.13 GHz, Windows XP, 4 G RAM, the projects that I've crunched this year give the following credits an hour per core.

Seti - 41 optimised client
Cosmology - 39
QMC - 36
Milkyway - 33 optimised client
Milkyway - 30 'old' client
PrimeGrid - 18 - 29 depending on sub project
Poem - 24
ABC - 22
Enigma - 20 optimised client
Einstein - 20
Magnetism - 16
NQueens - 14

Bearing in mind that I haven't run some of the projects for a couple of months and the rate may have changed, the optimised client returns slightly more than the old client for Milkway but still less than the optimised client for Seti. I don't have any data for the stock client on Seti as I haven't used that recently.

Looks to me that it's about right at the moment even if it's more than the Seti stock client.

---

The thing is, with Milkyway at the moment, the 'stock client' is the optimized client so comparing optimized to optimized works in terms of SETI. Then again, how about comparing AMD to AMD or Intel to Intel. An earlier post of numbers suggests something that a number of the SETI crunchers have known for a while -- the SETI application works faster, clock cycle to clock cycle, on Intel CPU's compared to AMD. Typically when AMD advocates note this over in SETI-land, they are told to shift to Intel. So I suppose instead, they could be told to shift to Milkyway :).

Stock client credit output should be compared to stock client, and optimised to optimised. No shout of "unfair" should be given credence if comparing optimised client to a stock client, even though for MW the optimised client is the stock client.

As I said earlier, I think the credit given is about right and time need to be given for things to settle for a few weeks. After then the credit can be reviewed (and amended), if this should be needed.

---

Aren't all applications 'optimized'? Since they have been improved over time just like MW's.

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.