[BLOG] FaH a true test
I have been kind of getting into folding at home pretty seriously, as in dropping roughly $900 into parts to have more video cards folding and quad core processors.
I just recently got an AMD 9600 up and folding under Windows and FahMon is reporting ~~1700 ppd for it, this is at stock 2.3GHz. I have an old 939 X2 4200+ that is at ~~600 ppd. But to top it all off my main rig runs a Q9450 at 3.55GHz and outputs anywhere from 2,200-3,000 ppd, depending on WUs that it is assigned. The ppd for the AMD processors is from the 1760 point WUs, which if you fold you know those you want because they are in and out faster than all of the other ones. I haven't run the Q9450 at stock speeds and seen what it folds at, 2.66GHz, but I have folded it at 3.8GHz and it doesn't seem to affect the production more than a hundred points. So, by projection one could guess at stock the Q9450 would put out ~~2500 at stock on the same WU as the AMD 9600 which really illustrates how far back the majority of the AMD processors that are in computers right now are behind the times; making up 500 points on CPU folding is difficult if not impossible.
Now I know this is really old news because of the massive amounts of benchs and reviews of the processors against each other but I would of guess the AMD 9xxx series quads would have done a little better around 1900 ppd. Now boot and running application the system as a whole is fast any way I run it. It is pushing behind 4GB of Patriot LLK series RAM and a GX2; as a side my folding farm is up around 28,000 points-two rigs do 10k+.
The other thing that I have seen in this new rig is how much extra stream processes can do when they are used on video cards. My G92 88GTs' OC'd to 650/1776/950 are folding at the same rate as the GX2 at stock. The GX2 runs 128 stream per core while the 88 has 112, the GX2 does have its memory at 1GHz(2 effective). The GX2 also runs cooler when compared to both 88s' when they had stock coolers, EVGA and XFX.
Just found this all interesting when I started really looking at the numbers, thought I should share.
I just recently got an AMD 9600 up and folding under Windows and FahMon is reporting ~~1700 ppd for it, this is at stock 2.3GHz. I have an old 939 X2 4200+ that is at ~~600 ppd. But to top it all off my main rig runs a Q9450 at 3.55GHz and outputs anywhere from 2,200-3,000 ppd, depending on WUs that it is assigned. The ppd for the AMD processors is from the 1760 point WUs, which if you fold you know those you want because they are in and out faster than all of the other ones. I haven't run the Q9450 at stock speeds and seen what it folds at, 2.66GHz, but I have folded it at 3.8GHz and it doesn't seem to affect the production more than a hundred points. So, by projection one could guess at stock the Q9450 would put out ~~2500 at stock on the same WU as the AMD 9600 which really illustrates how far back the majority of the AMD processors that are in computers right now are behind the times; making up 500 points on CPU folding is difficult if not impossible.
Now I know this is really old news because of the massive amounts of benchs and reviews of the processors against each other but I would of guess the AMD 9xxx series quads would have done a little better around 1900 ppd. Now boot and running application the system as a whole is fast any way I run it. It is pushing behind 4GB of Patriot LLK series RAM and a GX2; as a side my folding farm is up around 28,000 points-two rigs do 10k+.
The other thing that I have seen in this new rig is how much extra stream processes can do when they are used on video cards. My G92 88GTs' OC'd to 650/1776/950 are folding at the same rate as the GX2 at stock. The GX2 runs 128 stream per core while the 88 has 112, the GX2 does have its memory at 1GHz(2 effective). The GX2 also runs cooler when compared to both 88s' when they had stock coolers, EVGA and XFX.
Just found this all interesting when I started really looking at the numbers, thought I should share.
0