NCC10281982B Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Yeah. I get you guys. I've always wanted a frame time database. It'd be easy to setup with a few tweaks to a program like EM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Project 2652 on 3.0E HT @ stock speed is taking 36 minutes a percent X 100= 3600 minutes divided by 60=60hrs divided by 24= 2.5 days deadline is 3 days. Looks like the 2610 is going to take almost 5 days on a 3.4C deadline is 4 days (no credit for this one) May have to OC more!. I will keep track and see what happens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardnrg Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 (edited) http://forum.folding-community.org/fpost172417.html#172417 found this... could be that the 2610 is just a slow project... also FAHMon supports WinSMP and LinSMP http://fahmon.fahinfo.org/ Edited March 19, 2007 by hardnrg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdingeling Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 running the 2652 on my E6400 @ 3.2GHz, taking about 14-16 minutes a step, so well within deadline! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 I upped the OC on both P4 rigs, the 3.0E with a bigger cache and SSE3 slowed down and the 3.4C with SSE2 also slowed down. I put them back on stock speed and they speed back up. The 3.0E Prescott with SSE3 and larger cache is going to make the deadline by half a day it looks like with 2652. The 3.4C with smaller catch and only SSE2 is going to be about a half day late. Does SSE2 and SSE3 and the cache have anything to do with it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 The 3.0E benchmark from Fahmon on 2652 is Min. Time / Frame : 35mn 22s - 467.42 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 35mn 22s - 467.42 ppd Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cchalogamer Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 So for the only BIG problem ive had with the windows version vs Linux is it seems to be a crapload more prone to OC related failure, the E6400 with crappy ram over 3ghz was goin great ubutu SMP, however it completed it's first windows WU this morning, then suddenly it went into super crash mode, crahed 8 WUs while i was away today, and then after a restart, small OC drop, and a manual delete of the work folder all was well again. I may stick with Linux SMP for a little while, this beta may very well be a little TOO beta for me atm. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bandwith Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 virtualization has an odd way of working around hardware problems that are specific to the current platform. if you are running OC'd and not 200% stable, then virtualization, though it has some overhead, can help even the playing field. god bless emulation! and linux converts! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scratch Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 running great E6400 @ 3.2ghz protein 2651 clone 300 @ 14min 23sec AMD 2x64 3800+ @2.4ghz protein 2652 clone 257 @ 21min 10 sec Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cchalogamer Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 virtualization has an odd way of working around hardware problems that are specific to the current platform. if you are running OC'd and not 200% stable, then virtualization, though it has some overhead, can help even the playing field. god bless emulation! and linux converts! This was actually on my dual boot system...aka my, so what if i screw it up, ill only need a reformat, rig Either way it's 29% done with the current unit and we'll see what happens, just convined the server to install properly, that took FOREVER, apparently one of the .NET updates didnt work so well wth the mpiexec and a reinstall of .NET 2.0 seems to have fixed that one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 Project: 2652 E6600 @ 3.2ghz. Benchmark from Fahmon. Min. Time / Frame : 12mn 03s - 1371.88 ppd Avg. Time / Frame : 12mn 03s - 1371.88 ppd Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdingeling Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 screw this, I'm giving it the -oneunit, this sucks! I'm back on VMware tomorrow morning, this thing is mad slow! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now