I'm rather new to the whole F@H thing, but I've been trying to read up on it and I think I'm getting the general idea now. Since it would seem that the new Gromacs core is available at this point, I went ahead and used mc68k's spiffy script to install F@H on my dual G5, and I've got it grinding away with what appears to be the new gromacs core (at least I didn't get a tinker unit).
At this point, each processor seems to be taking about 9 minutes or so per frame (that is what they're called, isn't it?) of a 100 frame, 51 point protein (p352_nat_305_99)... which made me wonder how much better than the old core that would be (and how it compares to Jaguar, which I'm not running).
Does it work to calculate minutes/point for comparative purposes, or are the points not consistent enough for that to be meaningful? If so, what are some before and after numbers of people who've been running for a while? Guess that'd make mine around 18 minutes/point (per processor), if that's at all meaningful.
Sorry in advance if I'm spewing meaningless drivel--just ignore the newbie.
At this point, each processor seems to be taking about 9 minutes or so per frame (that is what they're called, isn't it?) of a 100 frame, 51 point protein (p352_nat_305_99)... which made me wonder how much better than the old core that would be (and how it compares to Jaguar, which I'm not running).
Does it work to calculate minutes/point for comparative purposes, or are the points not consistent enough for that to be meaningful? If so, what are some before and after numbers of people who've been running for a while? Guess that'd make mine around 18 minutes/point (per processor), if that's at all meaningful.
Sorry in advance if I'm spewing meaningless drivel--just ignore the newbie.