Console Version Faster Then Graphic One ?

[TyraN]

Hi , i fold with the graphical interface but i heard the console version goes faster. Is this true ?

 

 

TyraN

[swifty11212]

I would think so, because the processor will have to work even more to display the actual folding even thought u have a video card. remember its best to give foh as much dedicated cpu power as possible.

[markiemrboo]

Tiny tiny bit faster I imagine, but I doubt you'd be able to notice

[BabyBalrog]

Yea same as above. but in the long run, it would be better, Service is probably even more efficiant jsut because of th eway XP handles it

[swifty11212]

in the long run, doesnt matter much, its a long process.

[mantonr]

I heard that it is supposed to be faster. Probably very minimally, but in the long run i suppose you will do more work units, thus helping to cure cancer more.

[Nemo]

That's the conventional wisdom over on the Folding Community forums. I started out folding with the graphical client and then switched to to console version. Never noticed a big difference in speed but, intuitive;y, it makes sense that it would be somewhat faster.

[bigr5026]

its more a thing of preference

[DarkScorpion]

Yeah, I think its a thing of preferance. I mean, the difference in the time it takes a WU to finish is probably only 3-4 seconds per step/frame. I like the consol version mroe though, because I think it takes up less memory

[cchalogamer]

The graphical when run as just the little tray icon takes no more, no less of anything, time resources And when in screensaver mode it doesnt even take up much more, if you read teh FAQ it states that it's a very low CPU usage process of drawing the protien. But one that that DOES matter, is that on some systems one version wont run and the other will. My laptop REFUSES to run the console version. Idk why but it locks up constantly with it, smooth folding with the graphical version. But it's really just personaly preference.