Hi Guys. Thanks a lot for the info. Yes, I got the info and the impression re: scoring being worth 110 x days to process WUs from the Stamford F@H FAQ. It's very confusing. I just took another look ... "How do you determine how many points a work unit is worth? Before putting out any new work unit, we benchmark it on a dedicated 2.8GHz Pentium 4 machine with SSE2 disabled (more specifically, as reported by /proc/cpuinfo on linux: vendor_id : GenuineIntel, cpu family : 15, model : 2, model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz, stepping : 9, cpu MHz : 2806.438, cache size : 512 KB). This machine runs linux, so all WUs are benchmarked with the linux core.
We plug the results of this into the following formula:
points = 110 * (daysPerWU)
where daysPerWU is the number of days it took to complete the unit. This equation was chosen to match the points for previous Gromacs WUs to the previous point system. The upshot is that Tinker WUs will be worth more than before we set up the new points (i.e. before April 2004)."
But of course I can see now they're using it as the basis of this fixed 'score'.
And just for the record, I'm running a 2.4GHz P4 with 756Mb DDR Ram and my first WUs took about 3 days or so to complete a 24x pointer. Only running one setup of the folding client tho.