Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Interesting Folding Observation

Sedulous

Sedulous

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Dec 10, 2002
2,530
2,580
If you go to the folding at home stat page, there is an option to view stats by OS.

Doing a little math:

Windows: 337,558 WU / 81,779 processors=
4.13 WU/processor

UNIX: 32,129 WU / 4413 processors =
7.28 WU/processor

Mac OS X: 23,198 WU / 2551 processors =
9.09 WU/processor

Does this tell us something?
 
Pretty much agrees with what I've seen with folding. I've got a Linux dual P3-Xeon 700 w/1MB L2 and it always beats my dual G4-800. Slower clock speeds, slower RAM, less chip cache, and it still wins. I bet one of those dual G4-1.2 cards could equalize things.
 
Originally posted by ddtlm
Pretty much agrees with what I've seen with folding. I've got a Linux dual P3-Xeon 700 w/1MB L2 and it always beats my dual G4-800.
Click to expand...

????

i'm not seeing how those numbers give any indication of folding speed.

what it tells me is that the mac users tend to stick w/ folding longer (more WU-production bang per processor buck).
 
The only thing I would say is that Mac users are more likely to fold 24/7 than others are.

The PC users are more likely to play games.

It used to be that there were more active Mac OS X users, as a percentage, than any other o.s.
 
zimv20:

Oops, I read that as "hours per unit". :rolleyes: So basically I read what I expected it to say. Stupid stupid.
 
Originally posted by ddtlm
zimv20:

Oops, I read that as "hours per unit". :rolleyes: So basically I read what I expected it to say. Stupid stupid.
Click to expand...

no worries. it was the middle of the night, i was sleepy and scratching my head. "what am i missing?!?!" lol
 
Originally posted by FelixDerKater
Macs definitely don't whip PCs in folding. My Compaq K6-III @400MHz is at least two or three times as fast at folding as my 500MHz G4.
Click to expand...

No one said that at all. :rolleyes:
Pcs are faster than macs in folding because they can't write the tiner core properly.

all should be good when we get gromac core tho... they just keep pushing it back :mad:

Yes that is why we have so many mac members helping out our team.
 
Originally posted by MrMacman
No one said that at all. :rolleyes:
Pcs are faster than macs in folding because they can't write the tiner core properly.

all should be good when we get gromac core tho... they just keep pushing it back :mad:

Yes that is why we have so many mac members helping out our team.
Click to expand...

No improvements to the Tinker core would suddenly yield 1-to-1 results against a processor double the clock speed. I think people are going to be disappointed that the Gromacs core will not be as fast as expected, even if it will be much faster than Tinker.

When the Gromacs core is bug-free, they will let it out to the general public, until that time, they need accurate answers.
 
MrMacman:

Pcs are faster than macs in folding because they can't write the tiner core properly.
Click to expand...
Or is it just because G4's and G3's are vastly outpowered by Athlons and P4's?
 
Originally posted by ddtlm
MrMacman:


Or is it just because G4's and G3's are vastly outpowered by Athlons and P4's?
Click to expand...

There should only be a 10-30% G4 ~ P4 difference because the Gromac core is Altevec supported, check there web site they have stats.

Basically there is a poor written code for the whole mac clients w/ Tinker. Plus with good code the gromac gives a better speed boost to the G4.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back