Poll: Minimum Folding CPU Speed?

profdlp

What is the lowest speed processor you would consider having as one of your F@H computers?

Put another way: What is the minimum before you'd retire a rig from Folding.

I am not referring to what you'd use for your main rig.

Note: GHz applies to AMD-based computers on a Power Rating basis. i.e., 2GHz would encompass both a P4 at 2000MHz and an Athlon XP 2000+.

airbornflght

well, I run an athlon 64 2800, and that is pretty slow folding @1.8Ghz. But we have dell workstations in the yearbook room that are C2D based xeons that are running @1.66Ghz iirc. There are two of them and they are dual core, and they are my folding power houses. Just one core from them does a lot more than my 2800. So I'm saying it depends on the processor. Though generally I would say 2.5Ghz would be worthwhile.

SPIKE09

Lowest I will use personally athlon xp2000+, my older duron 800's retired a few month's back as the lack TT's and the 3dnow/SSE instruction set made them no longer viable.

Leonardo

Given that the computer were already owned by me or under my control, the minimum I would bother Folding with would be P4 1.8 equivalent. If I were to build a system for Folding from new or used parts, the minimum would be dual core, but I would not again use D8XX series Intel.

profdlp

Did you know that the thread gets posted before the poll is finished?

Neither did I - until just now.

profdlp

Leonardo wrote:

Given that the computer were already owned by me or under my control, the minimum I would bother Folding with would be P4 1.8 equivalent. If I were to build a system for Folding from new or used parts, the minimum would be dual core, but I would not again use D8XX series Intel.

Good point.

How about we view the different choices as the minimum before you'd retire a rig from Folding.

Sledgehammer70

I think 2.0 GHz is a fair trade.. But I think 2.0 in regards to a 775 socket or better and a 939 socket or better. As I feel the 754, 468 & Socket A don't have much of a upgrade path

SPIKE09

profdlp wrote:

Did you know that the thread gets posted before the poll is finished?

Neither did I - until just now.

me neither just posted 1st time poll was there when I got back

QCH

I'll put F@H on anything over 1.0GHz as long as its not in my house. I wont's put F@H on anything under 1.5GHZ if it's gonna be just folding. I figure if a system is being used for normal business/ internet stuff, it gets F@H. At work, specially since all PC's need to be on at all times for reporting, patching, and such.

My view, recently, has changed. I use to have 11 PCs running in my house. Only 4 of them were being used for daily stuff. The rest were just sitting there folding. Now that I'm trying to trim power, I am down to 4 and everyone one of them is over 2.5GHz except SM19 which is a 1900+.

I would say all new rigs need to be over 2.0GHz and all old rigs should be brought up to 2.0 over then next year.

Garg

I have a Duron 1300 I've been wanting to get folding again, so thereabouts lie my lowest speed cutoff.

Of course, it's a Morgan core, so the performance/watt is a lot better than a 1300 TBird. I probably wouldn't activate a TBird at all.

Donut

I went 1.5 or better, BUT that depends on the architecture. My 2000 AXP's used to run circles around a 2 gig celeron.

This is my opinion, I don't want to start a war over which is better.

Kwitko

386, definitely.

Datsun-1600

If it is not a dual-core, it is either a websurfer/games comp or a door stop.

Datsun 1600

Leonardo

Thanks for bringing that up. I don't think any new purchases for SMx machines should include single core CPUs, AMD or Intel.

ins4n17y

if i had a intel 8080 that could run the folding program.....sure. why the nedd for such speed anyways?

Thrax

Work units have deadlines. Fast CPUs are required to meet the deadlines.

DanG

The slowest box I have folding is my girlfriends laptop, it's 1.6Ghz. It is a core 2 duo, but pure numbers, it's the lowest clock speed of all of them.

csimon

Thrax wrote:

Work units have deadlines. Fast CPUs are required to meet the deadlines.

Although sm30 is only 1.4ghz I would have to say that a min of 2.5 would be for me! 3.0 would be sweet.

airbornflght

isiea wrote:

if i had a intel 8080 that could run the folding program.....sure. why the nedd for such speed anyways?

Well, if you want your work-unit done anytime in the next decade I'd advise against it.

DogDragon

Well if it can fold let it fold

mirage

My slowest system is a PIII 1.5GHz (Tualatin) but it is probably faster than a 1.8GHz P4. It is still folding with every WU fine so I keep it running. The second slowest is a P4 2.4 GHz Nothwood (ES) running at 2.66. The mainboard is about to die; after replacing 7 leaking capacitors one year ago, I recently saw 2 more leaking. I will retire this CPU when the mainboard dies because my other mainboards are not able to use this CPU since it is an ES. These are my two antiques, the other computers are fairly new.

BuddyJ

My slowest system is a P3 800mhz. I keep it folding because every little bit helps. Electricity cost be damned.

airbornflght

my slowest is the A64 2800. it isnt that fast either. I personally couldn't see running anything slower.

ins4n17y

Now i know the 8080 is a tad a little on the extreme however, but seriously, does anyone here know the minimum clockspeed required anyways to properly fold and/or keep up the deadlines?

on the other hand...

DogDragon wrote:

Well if it can fold let it fold

Thanks you. And to quote Thrax earlier i am aware that WU's have deadlines, however, i really don't believe that Stanford University is targeting just enthusiasts with new bleeding edge/overclocked cpu's....or are they?

thanks

cheers.

isi.

Datsun-1600

Stanford worked it's deadlines out using a Celeron 500Mhz running 24/7, so anything faster taking into account running costs will be fine, but with dual core CPUs from both AMD and Intel so affordable, why would you go slow and single core?

Datsun 1600

profdlp

isiea wrote:

...I really don't believe that Stanford University is targeting just enthusiasts with new bleeding edge/overclocked cpu's...

The answer bears some explanation. If I only had one computer and it was my old K6-2/300 I would still try to Fold, merely because I want to support the project in any way I can. This question is aimed more at those people who build dedicated Folding rigs solely for the purpose of expanding their contribution to the cause. In the case of the latter, there comes a point when you would be better off scrapping a half-dozen feeble old rigs and putting the money you save in electricity into replacing them with one or two more powerful computers.

Think of it like an automobile. I drive a beat up old '97 model car because it is all I have. Had I the dough to get a second vehicle it would be spent on something to fill the niche I was buying it for. Maybe a nice convertible to cruise around in on my way to the lake on a Sunday afternoon. Or perhaps a truck which could tow a camper for weekend getaways. I sure as heck wouldn't waste my money on another beat up old '97 rustbucket.

Ultra-Nexus

I would consider not really speed but CPU features like SSE and SSE2, and if possible 64bit support. Therefore my slowest processors are a celeron (northwood) 2.4ghz and a AM2 2800+ sempron.

My hope is to have all X2´s someday, and be able to use the same mobo I bought for them now, to drive future quad cores (when they get cheaper, of course).

Tim

I personally don't like to run folding on anything under 1 Ghz.

I have a couple of Athlon MP1600 CPUs (1.4 Ghz) that will soon go into a Tyan S2462 dual CPU motherboard. Those are the slowest CPUs I have here at home. I'd love to run a pair of Athlon MP2600+ or higher CPUs, but they go for insane amounts of money on eBay, and I've spent WAY too much on computer stuff in the past 2 weeks already.

Oriane

I voted 2.0GHz or better-

After all, AMD has just clawed to 3.0.

dragonV8

Considering the majority of WU's need decent processing power, i voted 2.0 ghz (Intel based).