Printable View
Yes, that's okay. My 1.4 TBird takes 44-47 minutes per iteration on large proteins. Just set it and forget it -- It adds up slowly but it all counts!Quote:
Originally posted by Muk108
ok it has been sitting on 0/2500 WU for the past 40 minutes. and i dont think that is normal. im on a 1.4 amd tbird. i have all the stuff setup correctly to my knowledge. im using folding@home 3.24 gui. i think that is all...
If you think the 1.4 Atlon is slow try a 850 Duron, but hey better than being wasted.
You wanna feel pain? Watch your fastest machine slow to a crawl on protein 254 -- that sucker more than doubled my time to complete a comparable point project. Only 17 hours left until that infestation is done! :mad: :D :DQuote:
Originally posted by gkline
If you think the 1.4 Atlon is slow try a 850 Duron, but hey better than being wasted.
RealBeast, which project # is protein 254?
p254, a 53.77 pt gromac -- real b@ll buster. Hopefully they gave the rest of them to the team ahead of us. :D Maybe it's the one that'll cure me someday. hehe.Quote:
Originally posted by gkline
RealBeast, which project # is protein 254?
Um it has to do with Insights into nucleic acid conformational dynamics from massively parallel stochastic simulations.:confused:
Can't wait to tackle it :DQuote:
Originally posted by RealBeast
p254, a 53.77 pt gromac -- real b@ll buster. Hopefully they gave the rest of them to the team ahead of us. :D Maybe it's the one that'll cure me someday. hehe.
Um it has to do with Insights into nucleic acid conformational dynamics from massively parallel stochastic simulations.:confused:
Originally posted by RealBeast
Um it has to do with Insights into nucleic acid conformational dynamics from massively parallel stochastic simulations.
Seems like just last night my girlfriend was saying something like that, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :D :cool:
i'm not really clear on how you could run molecular dynamics simulations in parallel...i guess i'll have to trust the pros on this one...
i'm running a p254 right now, it's been going soooo sloooooooowwww
this better get me some good points :D
53.77Quote:
Originally posted by |_053|2
i'm running a p254 right now, it's been going soooo sloooooooowwww
this better get me some good points :D
Why, did you have to bring it up, I have got one now on my 1.8ghz computer and it is going to take almost 25hrs to finish it.:(Quote:
Originally posted by RealBeast
You wanna feel pain? Watch your fastest machine slow to a crawl on protein 254 -- that sucker more than doubled my time to complete a comparable point project. Only 17 hours left until that infestation is done! :mad: :D :D
According to my team stats, I've done one 254 already. I sure hope the next doesn't choose the 850 Duron!:eek:
oh my goodness, it has taken me 12 hours to get 18 percent done, this is goign to take a really long time to do...if they are all this long. and it has been running on 100% power since i am away most the time.
I've done 7 254's now. had 5 at the same time last week.
Thermo YOU ARE ON FIRE!!!!(no pun intended!;)
Seriously, Thermo, do you have one of the new Athlon 64's? If so, does it "consume" the folding file?
Yep, I have an FX51 folding, but it folds like a 2gig P4.Quote:
Originally posted by gkline
Seriously, Thermo, do you have one of the new Athlon 64's? If so, does it "consume" the folding file?
Why is that do you think?Quote:
Originally posted by Thermo
Yep, I have an FX51 folding, but it folds like a 2gig P4.
Could it be that the FX51 has the new SSE2? instructions built in?
How does the FX51 compare to say a Barton 2500 o/c to 3200 such as I have?
The Athlon64 (& FX51) does have SSE2, but I'd expect it to perform better than a 2gig P4. Is it possibly to do with the (relatively) low clock speed?
If they ever release a 64-bit client then that chip will absolutely fly through the WU's.
Do you guys think that uping the FSB O/C at the expense of using a memory divider would significantly improve folding on an AthlonXP?
I might be misinterpreting your question but FSB makes little difference to folding performance. AMDMB, EOC, OC and [H] have all posed this question and the answer always comes back that there's no significant gains between say 100x20 and 200x10 for instance.
-forceSSE does not work on it.Quote:
Originally posted by V5500-StillGoing
The Athlon64 (& FX51) does have SSE2, but I'd expect it to perform better than a 2gig P4. Is it possibly to do with the (relatively) low clock speed?
If they ever release a 64-bit client then that chip will absolutely fly through the WU's.
Hey Thermo looks like your challengers have finally emerged in the forms of V5500-stillgoing and RealBeast
How about '-forceasm', this is what I use on my AMD chips.Quote:
Originally posted by Thermo
-forceSSE does not work on it.