What projects are your machines best at?

Not your whole farm, each individual machine or class of machine.

I've noticed, several times over the last few years, that different hardware performs differently on different sub-projects at WCG but I've never really gone into it too much until last night.
I ran a broad mix of work for about a week and then tabulated what each machine was getting RETURNED on a points per hour runtime basis and the results were rather interesting.
For my machines (all running Ubuntu Linux 10.04 of some description) the best returning projects were:
Sossamans (32bit server): Clean Water project
Q6600 (64bit desktop): Help Conquer Cancer (by a margin)
Opty 170 (64bit desktop): Help Fight Childhood Cancer
Opty 185 (32bit desktop): Help Conquer Cancer (still testing this one but it looks solid)

To be consistent, if people want to make an equivalent comparison go to WCG > My Grid > Results Status and select the machine, the project and "valid". Total the run time for each result and the GRANTED credit then divide the credit by the hours. Record that and repeat for each project you have results for.
For those whose passion is for particular projects this is, of course, irrelevant. For those looking to fine tune their stats this will be useful.
Note, for this calculation the number of cores is irrelevant, it's just points granted per hour runtime.

yup, I call it 'project matching' .
Setup different profiles for each or several machines , so each machine gets the WU's with the highest claimed/granted score.

You can't really say cpu A does best at project B imo ... stock speed or overclocked can make a big difference in the claimed/granted department.

Find out for yourself which projects are best for each of your systems.

I should mention that the CEP2 project out returned everything else I tested on the Q6600, but the network demands are such that I won't run it full time regardless. I also didn't tect the HPF2 project as I just don't run it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaco

yup, I call it 'project matching' .
Setup different profiles for each or several machines , so each machine gets the WU's with the highest claimed/granted score.

You can't really say cpu A does best at project B imo ... stock speed or overclocked can make a big difference in the claimed/granted department.

Find out for yourself which projects are best for each of your systems.

---

Quite true, there's a LOT more to it than just CPU type. Everything from the CPU, mobo, RAM amount and speed, HDD type and speed, OS type/version and other usage will all play a part in ways that are hard to predict. Only way to do this is on a per machine basis.

I had a Pentium E2140 that did excellent with HCC on Ubuntu x64. I upgraded it to the Xeon X3210 so I'm hoping the trend continues (and see no reason for it not to).

My i7-860 is only crunching HCC and HFCC (on Win7 x64) and it is doing a lot better on HFCC.
That is nice to know, but I will noter drop HCC for it.

I just run everything as I believe they're all equally important and the points are just a thank you - not the be all and end all :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101

I just run everything as I believe they're all equally important and the points are just a thank you - not the be all and end all :)

---

Faster WU = more work completed. Knowing that Core 2's like HCC and it seems Netbursts like HFCC. Funny enough, in WCG-RAC, the X3210 @ 2.13GHz is netting more points than the Q8300 @ 3.3GHz. The Q8300 has been in my main longer (but I do use my main a lot).

I'd rather contribute a bit to everything than everything to a bit :D

As I said in the original post, not everyone will be interested in this and that's fine :) Personally I have a "temporary situation" relating to ranking (all in fun of course) that I wish to deal with but I'll go back to a broad range of work to suit my closest interests once that's taken care of. ;)

Well... as discussed here, I/we assume that Linux is a lot more efficient at crunching HCC, if the work units for Linux and Windows clients are indeed worth the same amount of research.
HCC clearly is my passion, along with HFCC - so if I had even a single dedicated machine left, I'd put it on Linux and HCC only.
Unfortunately, I've downsized a little over the past half year, and every single one of my machines has a user now who wants and/or needs Windows :p:

But if I were to receive a sudden influx of cash (meaning I'd finally re-start building my own little crunching cluster ), those machines would all do HCC on Linux 64.