i7 920 vs i7 860 direct test comparison

OK, I now have one of each. I threw the 920 together today and got it clocked up to 3.7 gig to match the 860 rig reported in the 1156 thread. Then, I took the 860 and matched the multiplier of the 920 (x20), put the QPI multi back to x18, so now the rigs are configured exactly alike. I'm running HFCC on both rigs to.

My plan is to analyze the c**p out of these with respect to power, PPD and WU production, and cost. Some of that, with detailed hardware list will come in later posts. What I want to show here is the setup screenies.

Emu is doing the same thing but at 4 gig with HFCC. This should get interesting...:up:

First, the build pic, if it can be called that....:rofl:

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...and920rigs.jpg

The 920 is on the left, the 860 on the right. And I'll say again, those Zalman 10x extremes are working REALLY well. Of course, they both have ICD7 paste on them....:up:

OK, setup screenie of the 860 rig first. This is different and updated from the one I posted in the 1156 thread, but at the same CPU clock speed. It has lower CPU multi, higher bclk, and higher QPI speed.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...037185bclk.jpg


Here's the screenie of the 920 rig. I had to do this in two pics since I'm running an old PCI virge card in it...This is on an MSI Platinum SLI board.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...85bclkpic1.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...85bclkpic2.jpg

There was a trick to getting it to bios overclock since it has this set of dip switches for "automatic" overclocking. It was set default to on and kept overwriting my bios settings...:mad: Of course, I could find nothing in the manual on how to disable it. I just tried putting all the dip switches in the off position and that worked.....:rolleyes: After that, the clock came easy. I have a good amount of margin left in this board so I should end up at 4 gig when all is said and done. This will be part of the power analysis. I want to establish the "sweet spot" on both rigs.

OK, so both are crunching away, I should have initial PPD/production results in a few days. I got curious when jcool posted data that indicated one of his 920 rigs was producing significantly more WUs per day than my 860.

Now I have a 920 "control" to compare the 860 to. (At least that's my excuse for buying it...:rofl::yepp::ROTF: Add that to the fact that I picked up an extra PSU a few days ago and it was getting lonely....)

The 860 was pulling 183 watts, Boinc loaded. I'll have to check that again since I changed the QPI around. The 920 is pulling 224 watts Boinc loaded. These are just initial figures. I'll put more detail around this later.

The BOINC bench on the 860 is 3,376/11,851. The 920 rig is 3,382/10,853.

I would also say to disregard the estimated completion WU times on both rigs. The 860 just got a batch of new HFCC WUs, it was running HCC. The 920 rig has not completed any WUs yet so it doesn't really know what the real times should be. I expect that to come down into the 4 hour range.

Wow, busy day today, and more hamsters in the stable. That will teach me to buy a power supply....:D

Bob

this will be interesting. thanks for your time Bob!!!

You're most welcome! Any excuse to add some hamsters on...This is in the name of science after all...:yepp::rofl:

OK, the first of many updates, this one somewhat unexpected. I was browsing the forum on the 860 rig (the one I'm typing on now) and it blue screened on me...:mad:

I had noted with the changes I made to bring up the QPI, it somehow dropped the reported vcore in CPUz. I don't know what that is about... I suppose the QPI boost requires more work from the CPU. So, I boosted the vcore by .007 volts. My Boinc loaded CPUz is now 1.232 on the 860 rig. We'll see how she runs. I can't wait to see how it produces with this subtle observation of vcore change.

Bob

ok 123bob///I am on a need to know basis...report in already:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAK1640

ok 123bob///I am on a need to know basis...report in already:rofl:

---

Yes Sir! Reporting in. We wouldn't want to keep Da Goosey waiting now....:rofl:

I had another blue screen overnight on the 860 rig. I'm thinking I didn't boost vcore enough. So, I did the math and boosted it back up to the level it ran on the 1156 thread. Namely, CPUz loaded with Boinc now reports 1.264 volts. I think it should run smooth now.

The 920 rig ran fine and the estimated completion ranges for HFCC WUs is down to about 5 hours each. I expect that to drop a bit more.

One thing to note is that my numbers for the first few days on the 860 will be skewed a little higher since I still have some HCC WUs pending validation. Those need to clear out before I'll get true numbers. I may try to back them out of my score by doing the math on individual WUs, but that might be more of a PITA than it's worth.

Stay tuned,
Bob

OK, nine hours later and the vcore bump on the 860 seems to have done the job. Crunching away on HFCC.

Bob

Heres my setup to add to the comparison Bob.

Both the i7-860 and i7-920 are running @ 4GHz and have the same QPI and multiplier etc. Only thing is they have different OSs but are both x64 so shouldnt be too much of a difference.:shrug:

Anyway heres some screens.

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...i7_8604GHz.png

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...i7-9204GHz.png

If you think it will make a difference I'll grab another HDD and install the same OS on both.

I think same as you that it will most likely take a few days for the other WUs pending to finalise so might have to run it like this for a while. Off to the hardware store soon to get a kill-a-watt.:up:

need to see the times on the same work group like bob's. :P

Anyhow great thread bob, waiting for your results.

Thx Emu! :up: This should get real interesting over the next few days.

One thing I noticed though is that HFCC now appears to be at a quorum of 2 also! We'll see how we are treated in the point department. What a time for them to change it up....Oh well, I'll keep on running it for a bit.

My rigs seem to have both settled into estimated completion times of just a few minutes over 4 hours. We'll see how that works out too. If it's correct, I should do about 48 WUs per day on each. That would put it right in line with jcool's data.

Bob

Emu, does your Core i7 860 require that much vcore to be stable? Insane :eek:

Good luck with the tests guys, I suspect the Core i7 860 will become the chip of choice due to the lower platform power consumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 123bob

Thx Emu! :up: This should get real interesting over the next few days.

One thing I noticed though is that HFCC now appears to be at a quorum of 2 also! We'll see how we are treated in the point department. What a time for them to change it up....Oh well, I'll keep on running it for a bit.
Bob

---

I reckon! ;) At least we can learn from each other right! My feeling is that my i7920 will win out purely due to the high Vcore my 860 chip requires to reach 4 GHz. As you did I noticed a significant jump in VCore requirements when pushing above 3.7GHz. As we will be running these 24/7 the power requirements will definetely add up.

I've taken some measurements but as one is WC and the other is not I need to work out what the draw of the pump is on the system as otherwise they are identical in terms of cooling fans!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler

Emu, does your Core i7 860 require that much vcore to be stable? Insane :eek:

Good luck with the tests guys, I suspect the Core i7 860 will become the chip of choice due to the lower platform power consumption.

---

Not quite that much I accidently left the Vdroop control on which goes a bit bonkers IMHO. So now its back to 1.4 in bios which is 1.435 under load :shrug: overcompensating for droop perhaps! I thought normally it went lower than what you set it at! :shrug:
I'll leave it crunching at this setting just so we can see what the difference is in terms of PPD when comparing clock for clock 1156 to 1366:up:

Oh and gomeler if you have a bit of a hunt around you will find 1.4Vcore is pretty normal from my reading. I do however believe my chip isn't the best but it is cooled by a triple radiator and is dumping some serious heat in the loop! :shocked:

Does the 860 still draw less pwr than the 920 when overclocked and crunchin its butt off?

Emu, can you bump the Uncore mult on the i7 to 18x? So it will match the 860 :)

Da Goose wants a prelim update...Report in soldiers...:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INFRNL

Does the 860 still draw less pwr than the 920 when overclocked and crunchin its butt off?

---

Not on mine it doesnt. I think it takes too much juice past 3.7GHz and mine is probably not a star performer. :rofl:;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcool

Emu, can you bump the Uncore mult on the i7 to 18x? So it will match the 860 :)

---

uhhh wut :rofl: I am such a noob at this still. So used to clocking Q6600s the terminology is still growing on me.

Anyways good pickup jcool and now Uncore is at 18x to match the i7 860! :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAK1640

Da Goose wants a prelim update...Report in soldiers...:rofl:

---

Still crunching here. My study is nice and toasty now and very messy. Gotta stop playing with the crunchers and tidy up its a little embarrasing :shakes:
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...S/DSCF1338.jpg

And yes the radiators are a little dirty but when I get a WC CPU block for the i7 920 they'll get a wash and dry!:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAK1640

Da Goose wants a prelim update...Report in soldiers...:rofl:

---

I will release no data before it's time....:rofl:

I want to see tonight's update. Then I'll post up some individual WU results. I won't post overall machine totals until they settle in. The HCC WUs have to clear out of the pending val queue, on the 860 rig, before I can accurately report machine totals.

I hate rushing data out just because. It does no good and there's no science to be had. There is no "sound byte" results on this test. It will take a week or longer to draw final conclusions.

As to the power question, I'll move the kill-a-watt back over to the 860 rig. That has had some changes to it, enough to warrant re-visiting it.

The 920 rig is drawing 223 watts, Boinc loaded. It's drawing 126 watts at idle.

The 860 rig is drawing 186 watts, Boinc loaded. It's drawing 94 watts idle.

So, the slight bump in Vcore, along with a significant boost to QPI speed only cost me about 3 watts! That's cool, I expected it to be more.

I suspect Emu and my chip are similar in that in order to hit 4 gig, significant vcore will be needed. I'll try that out in a couple of days. Right now it's 3.7 gig, head to head.

Oh, and now it's been more than 8 minutes since Hicks post below.....I'm a cra*py typer.....:rofl:

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 123bob

The 860 rig is drawing....<placeholder, be back to update in a few....>

---

Hey! IT's been 8 minutes......:p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emuexport

And yes the radiators are a little dirty but when I get a WC CPU block for the i7 920 they'll get a wash and dry!:cool:

---

Dang! THOSE ARE DIRTY!! How much dust you have in that house?!! LOL:rofl::ROTF:

:) Great test guys. Very interested in hearing how it turns out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emuexport

And yes the radiators are a little dirty but when I get a WC CPU block for the i7 920 they'll get a wash and dry!:cool:

---

Why not just take a shop vac to it quick? That'll suck the dust right off...

OK, some results.....

First a rig total. I'm surprised they came this close today....Remember though, take this with a grain of salt since I have HCC units still in the pending val queue....We'll see how it settles out. The queue should largely empty out by tomorrow night's update, with any luck. I'll keep an eye on it and report when it's gone.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...cs/totpic1.png

This is the interesting one. Some WUs.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...ics/wupic1.png

This would imply that the QPI setting has a profound effect on the machine's production. I bumped the 860 up from a low level and the average completion time is VERY close to the 920 rig.

Note that I'm still taking somewhat of a beating in the quorum score, so I put more value on the completion time category. The total machine scores will be interesting in a few days. Right now, no conclusion can be drawn about that....

Bob

Quick question for the Euro folks. Do your power companies also charge by the KWH like the USA? What are some sample costs for you guys, in Euros? With the dollar value going up and down, I'm trying to make it more meaningful for you guys. Your power costs don't fluctuate like our exchange rates do....:eek:

If you have suggestions, let me know. :up:

The reason I ask is that when I do power cost analysis, I'd like to have Euro columns in it too. I plan on having a power cost range of about $0.05 to $0.35 per KWH for the US folks.

Thx,
Bob

Excellent work guys :up: :clap:. It looks like the lynnfields might keep up with the 920's so far. The question though is if you run 24/7 how much money would you save ea month running lynnfield saving approx 30w? Basically this is the only place you will save.

I believe Bob said it would only be a few bucks a month at the $0.05 mark.

Contemplating, go Lynnfield or stay with 920's :shrug: I know I go back and forth, just want to make sure I am getting the most for my money. I have concluded for sure that a decent P55 board and cpu will cost me the same as a 920. By decent, I mean the $130-150 mark. Just trying to justify this in my head.

It may be fun just to try the lynnfield; It wouldn't be my main rig and it seems to crinch just as well, so the only loss would be only 2 slots for gpu which is no biggy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 123bob

Quick question for the Euro folks. Do your power companies also charge by the KWH like the USA? What are some sample costs for you guys, in Euros? With the dollar value going up and down, I'm trying to make it more meaningful for you guys. Your power costs don't fluctuate like our exchange rates do....:eek:

If you have suggestions, let me know. :up:

The reason I ask is that when I do power cost analysis, I'd like to have Euro columns in it too. I plan on having a power cost range of about $0.05 to $0.35 per KWH for the US folks.

Thx,
Bob

---

You honestly don't want to know. the Netherlands is quite expensive, we pay ~€.40 net for 1 kWh. I believe Belgium and Germany were about as expensive, but I could be wrong. Do keep in mind that all our power lines are underground and we rarely have black- or brownouts. I never needed my UPS, the last blackout was 3 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martijn

You honestly don't want to know. the Netherlands is quite expensive, we pay ~€.40 net for 1 kWh. I believe Belgium and Germany were about as expensive, but I could be wrong. Do keep in mind that all our power lines are underground and we rarely have black- or brownouts. I never needed my UPS, the last blackout was 3 years ago.

---

Yes, I want to honestly know! Jeebers, I hope you retired that northy I sent you.....:eek: It's a power pig......:D

JEEPERS KHRISTOS!! Hope you don't mind if I mix US slang with Greek.....:yepp:

Power here in the Pac NW is $0.05 per KWH. It's been that cost for years....

So for you Euro folks, the high end of the power cost analysis is what you would be interested in. I can see why. I will ask for your help in the initial cost of these rig items too.

This thread just got WAY more important to me. For any of you across the pond, LMK any specific tests you would like me to run. I intended this post to find the right production vs "green power" point. I think the 860 rig is there now. The point for the 920 remains to be seen...

Honestly, I live in the biggest consumer nation in the world. We want it cheap, fast, and good. In my Engineering career, I've always been told you can have any two, but not all three. So far, that has held true.

My best,
Bob

I did indeed retire it, but I gave it to a friend of mine. He's now using it for his server. 2.26 northy's aren't too bad though, especially when undervolted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martijn

I did indeed retire it, but I gave it to a friend of mine. He's now using it for his server. 2.26 northy's aren't too bad though, especially when undervolted.

---

:up:

Good to know it still lives on, somewhere. That was a good chip. It served me well for years...:up:

Want some Kents B3 quads? :rofl::ROTF::clap: I still have your addy.....

Bob

No thanks, I got Sammy for a reason :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martijn

No thanks, I got Sammy for a reason :rofl:

---

:yepp::rofl::ROTF:

Understood!.... The Kents are probably best spent their life in the pasture out here in the Pac NW, where they can live cheap....:D

Now if we can have an 1156 socket, stupidly power efficient 860 varient, that has hyperthreading, then Intel has got a Euro crunching market....Yes?

Bob

Great work Bob! I'll help out with some more numbers when I get home. The whole reason I bought the 860 was to help out finding the sweet spot for us crunchers. The 860s use bugger all power at default so that would be another point to look at

I'll post up some scary power info soon. :(

Bob , I think you're on to something :

Quote:

---

This would imply that the QPI setting has a profound effect on the machine's production. I bumped the 860 up from a low level and the average completion time is VERY close to the 920 rig.

---

Very nice updates...Looks promising for the cheap Lynnfields...:up::clap:

0.40€? That is insane martijn.. I just recently changed my power plan to a new provider that charges € 0.172 per KWH + ~90€ annual fees. Still gets me to around 300€ utility a month, with no A/Cs or anything :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcool

0.40€? That is insane martijn.. I just recently changed my power plan to a new provider that charges € 0.172 per KWH + ~90€ annual fees. Still gets me to around 300€ utility a month, with no A/Cs or anything :p:

Guys, keep in mind Lynnfield does NOT have QPI! ONLY LGA1366 features the faster QPI interconnect, Lynnfield has to make do with the slower DMI (even though some mobos will still call it QPI). THAT is why high DMI mult results in better performance for the Lynnfields, while the 920's couldn't care less what QPI mult you run.

---

Thanks for the info jcool. Wasnt aware of that. May be another item for testing!;)

So the power numbers are in!

So according to my ARLEC power meter ($30AUD) these are the numbers.

i7 920 @ 4GHz 1.264Vcore (CPU-Z) 263Watts Load (incl 44Watts for fans and HDD)

i7 860 @ 4GHz 1.4Vcore (BIOS) (1.423 CPU-Z) 295Watts:shocked: (incl 47 watts for fans pump and HDD)
Interestingly at stock Auto Vcore (BIOS) (1.211 CPU-Z) 177Watts (incl 47 watts for fans pump and HDD)

Not sure what the 920 uses at stock though. I think the next analysis calls for stock Vcore OC comparison. The i7 860 is a far more power efficient CPU than the 920 by my numbers but requires more power to get the same speed in terms of GHz.

Obviously these are just based off my cpus so will be good to see how much juice Bobs requires to get to 4GHz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcool

0.40€? That is insane martijn.. I just recently changed my power plan to a new provider that charges € 0.172 per KWH + ~90€ annual fees. Still gets me to around 300€ utility a month, with no A/Cs or anything :p:

---

Our bill is ~€250/month. I'm not even a farmer :shakes:

As long as I don't have to pay for electricity I don't really care. I am getting some LED spotlights soon, though. Saves another 150W at night... Dad is quite tempted getting solar panels, but there's no money at the moment since we're getting a new car soon. Anyway, there's no need for solar panels anymore once I have left the house :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martijn

You honestly don't want to know. the Netherlands is quite expensive, we pay ~€.40 net for 1 kWh. I believe Belgium and Germany were about as expensive, but I could be wrong. Do keep in mind that all our power lines are underground and we rarely have black- or brownouts. I never needed my UPS, the last blackout was 3 years ago.

---

Sorry, but as a fellow Dutchman Im going to call this BS. Two minutes in google gave me the following result, and this is from a company that is certainly no price fighter.

http://www.essent.nl/content/thuis/p...rder/index.jsp

€0.09 for the power and €0.12 for taxes. So that's €0.21 per KWH

BTW, the fact taht our net is underground does not warrant a high electricity price. You pay addiotnal costs for the power grid (a fixed amount).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emuexport

Thanks for the info jcool. Wasnt aware of that. May be another item for testing!;)

---

Actually emu, that's not the whole truth, that's why I removed it for now ;)

It looks like this: Lynnfield does have an internal QPI connection to its on-die integrated PCIe controller which controls the PCIe lanes, much like Bloomfields have a QPI interconnect to the x58 northbridge which controls the PCIe lanes.

However, unlike Bloomfield, it does not have a QPI link to the southbridge, which should not matter for crunching really.

So, the question remains - why would a higher QPI mult benefit the CPU for crunching, since it's not sending any data over the PCIe to the GPU? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v0dka

Sorry, but as a fellow Dutchman Im going to call this BS. Two minutes in google gave me the following result, and this is from a company that is certainly no price fighter.

http://www.essent.nl/content/thuis/p...rder/index.jsp

€0.09 for the power and €0.12 for taxes. So that's €0.21 per KWH

BTW, the fact taht our net is underground does not warrant a high electricity price. You pay addiotnal costs for the power grid (a fixed amount).

---

Hmm, that's certainly interesting. I never really bothered to look into eneco's exact prices. Apparently they're at 25c/kWh, which is nowhere near as high as the 40c/kWh I was told about. Adding the additional costs to that might up that 25c to 30c at most. I guess I am going to have a talk with the dad, it looks like he was exaggerating like I was :shakes:

Bob, you had B3 quads left? :rofl:

Seems I copied the wrong link BTW.

http://www.essent.nl/content/thuis/p...it_q3_2009.jsp

It says something about fixed costs too, only €25,- a year. I have to admit though that I never review my bills from the energy company so might be that there are some other fees on there.

SO I just switched coolers on my 750 (Zipang for the Noctua C12P top down) and brought it up to 4Ghz and the 36x QPI mult (200x20 now). Seems like it needs something in the neighbourhood of 1,32V Vcore to do it.
Crunching at 70-66-68-66 on the table, which is ok IMO.

Fellas, I have a X3440 and gigabyte uD2 coming; hope the mobo makes it by the weekend, it wil be close. I do not have a killawatt and am not sure how the 3440 will oc since it is not a direct ver of the 860, but it should help compare crunching #'s

I am scared though after seeing emu's wattages. If thats the truth, then we might as well have gone with 1366. Bobs wattage readings even oc'd show lynnfield using less pwr; so I do not know

In the end $215 for cpu & $100 for mobo=$315.00, not bad!

Some stock numbers for i7:
IDLE: 195 watts
LOAD: 263 watts
Info comes from my power backup, so they may be off by a small margin, but are a good ballpark. I realize this is more than the rigs tested, but I also have a GTX 260 (55nm), D5 vario, 3 drives (1 velociraptor), and 3 120mm fans. I imagine the GPU is making the difference in draw...

Looks like a reasonable choice. 2.53 gig with hyperthreading. Good price too. :up: You'll have to let us know how it clocks.

What Emu and I are both seeing is kind of a wall in the 3.8 to 4 gig region. Emu overcame this with vcore. I have not tried it yet myself. I will in a few days and report.

At some point, the higher vcore is not worth it for the small production gain. This depends on your particular power cost though. When Emu's rig settles in, we will be able to directly compare 4 gig 860 to 3.7 gig 860. Part of the goal here is to spell out enough options so everyone can figure out what suits them.

Bob

@Bob ^^^ very true. I now need to try and get a good cooler or new brackets. I will have to see when my mobo will be here. Might have to make a trip To Denver to MC and see if they are stocking any 1156 coolers, possibly borrow a mobo(not sure what their return policy is though):ROTF: :shrug:

I will update you on this build as soon as possible. to help in comparisons. I would like to get to 4ghz, but would be happy with 3.8 which will be good to compare to my current 920 rigs.

I ran the Q9550@4ghz 1.3v for about a day and a half, but not sure if it was still clearing out other projects. just running HFCC was getting right in the 20kppd range. looks like HFCC is more work than some projects. I have had 20k all the way up to30k+ppd on the Q9550. I think some of it was from catching up. Looks like the Q9550 on HFCC is getting in the 30 wu mark per day, but hard to tell with only a day and a half of time.

920@ 3.8 looks to be running approx 40-50 wu mark so far. Will have to continue to monitor; I had some downtime today because I am getting ready to switch things around since i sold the 9550 rig

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 123bob

Looks like a reasonable choice. 2.53 gig with hyperthreading. Good price too. :up: You'll have to let us know how it clocks.

What Emu and I are both seeing is kind of a wall in the 3.8 to 4 gig region. Emu overcame this with vcore. I have not tried it yet myself. I will in a few days and report.

At some point, the higher vcore is not worth it for the small production gain. This depends on your particular power cost though. When Emu's rig settles in, we will be able to directly compare 4 gig 860 to 3.7 gig 860. Part of the goal here is to spell out enough options so everyone can figure out what suits them.

Bob

---

WHS it's all to help us crunchers make a more informed decision. The cost of purchasing an i7 860 may drop in the future and the info we are gathering will still be applicable. :D

I'm only running it "hot" so that we have another comparison point. So it will be great to do the same thing with your x3440 INFRNL

Emu, just curious to know how both of your rigs Boinc bench. My rigs are as follows; the 860 is 3,376/11,851. The 920 rig is 3,382/10,853. Close in Whetstone but the 860 is almost 1000 points higher in Dhrystone.

I'll be posting up a sample of 105 HFCC WUs to compare run-times soon. The prior sample was for 30 WUs each.

Right now, the PPD scores are all over the place for the last day. Interestingly, the 920 has developed a two page pending val queue of HFCC WUs. The 860 still has about one page of HCC WUs in the pending val queue, but no HFCC units there. I'm not sure if that means anything right now...

@INFRNL, the Zalman 10x extreme comes with 1156 brackets. I'd check that the cooler you buy has them too. I read an article that not all coolers have them currently. I wish I had a Micro Center near me....:up:

Bob

Here's a CPU run time average for each machine with 105 valid WUs. Scroll to the bottom if you don't want to look at the individual units. Both rigs take a beating in the quorum. I had trouble formatting this mess so it ain't pretty, but it's data.....:rofl: I cut out the "WU status" and "sent time" columns since they don't matter.

The 860 rig...

860 Rig (BOBS-FARM-13)

WU # Result Name Device Name Return Time CPU Time (hours) Claimed/ Granted
1 HFCC_ t1_ 02335336_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 15:57 2.83 75.4 / 62.7
2 HFCC_ t1_ 02333016_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 15:59 4 110.6 / 90.1
3 HFCC_ t1_ 02333117_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 15:57 4.06 108.4 / 90.0
4 HFCC_ t1_ 02333236_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 15:57 4.58 122.0 / 101.6
5 HFCC_ t1_ 02339050_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 15:57 4.18 111.3 / 93.6
6 HFCC_ t1_ 02331968_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 15:57 3.76 100.3 / 84.4
7 HFCC_ t1_ 02336933_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 15:57 2.99 79.8 / 68.2
8 HFCC_ t1_ 02335047_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 15:57 4.02 107.2 / 91.9
9 HFCC_ t1_ 02336996_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 15:57 4.33 115.3 / 98.4
10 HFCC_ t1_ 02336542_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 8:52 3.64 100.8 / 81.5
11 HFCC_ t1_ 02337007_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 15:57 4.5 120.0 / 101.6
12 HFCC_ t1_ 02321889_ TrkB_ 0000_ 1-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 16:30 4.45 123.2 / 94.3
13 HFCC_ t1_ 02339017_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 7:06 3.33 91.9 / 74.6
14 HFCC_ t1_ 02337538_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 8:21 4.55 125.7 / 102.5
15 HFCC_ t1_ 02336158_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 15:57 6.61 176.2 / 152.0
16 HFCC_ t1_ 02335876_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 6:45 3.91 108.1 / 86.9
17 HFCC_ t1_ 02335685_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 5:52 3.97 109.4 / 89.2
18 HFCC_ t1_ 02335605_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 5:52 4.11 113.3 / 91.2
19 HFCC_ t1_ 02337529_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 4:46 4.34 119.5 / 98.4
20 HFCC_ t1_ 02333060_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 4:46 3.65 100.6 / 80.3
21 HFCC_ t1_ 02314680_ TrkB_ 0002_ 1-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 14:29 4.54 111.4 / 101.8
22 HFCC_ t1_ 02339973_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 4:46 4.65 128.0 / 102.6
23 HFCC_ t1_ 02331319_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 3:04 3.16 85.6 / 70.4
24 HFCC_ t1_ 02339517_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 4:46 4.12 113.5 / 90.6
25 HFCC_ t1_ 02330579_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 3:04 3.46 93.8 / 75.4
26 HFCC_ t1_ 02338971_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 3:04 4.1 111.2 / 90.3
27 HFCC_ t1_ 02331152_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 3:04 4.7 127.5 / 105.5
28 HFCC_ t1_ 02330770_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 3:04 3.9 105.9 / 88.5
29 HFCC_ t1_ 02334230_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 3:04 3.93 106.7 / 87.0
30 HFCC_ t1_ 02332304_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 23:39 3.84 103.1 / 85.1
31 HFCC_ t1_ 02331955_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 23:59 4.16 112.2 / 93.0
32 HFCC_ t1_ 02328092_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/30/2009 3:04 4.66 126.4 / 103.8
33 HFCC_ t1_ 02328911_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 22:36 2.76 77.2 / 62.3
34 HFCC_ t1_ 02325775_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 22:36 3.06 85.5 / 68.8
35 HFCC_ t1_ 02325610_ TrkB_ 0000_ 1-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 14:29 4.32 106.0 / 103.1
36 HFCC_ t1_ 02325911_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 22:36 2.93 81.9 / 64.2
37 HFCC_ t1_ 02322101_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 22:36 4.34 121.2 / 98.0
38 HFCC_ t1_ 02324182_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.58 93.0 / 80.6
39 HFCC_ t1_ 02320966_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.88 100.7 / 87.0
40 HFCC_ t1_ 02321726_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.8 98.5 / 84.8
41 HFCC_ t1_ 02323115_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 22:36 4.72 131.9 / 104.4
42 HFCC_ t1_ 02322422_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 2.75 71.2 / 62.0
43 HFCC_ t1_ 02322247_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 4.97 128.8 / 111.1
44 HFCC_ t1_ 02322269_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.55 92.1 / 79.2
45 HFCC_ t1_ 02322645_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.67 95.3 / 83.2
46 HFCC_ t1_ 02321317_ TrkB_ 0005_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.68 95.3 / 83.2
47 HFCC_ t1_ 02320780_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.16 82.1 / 72.4
48 HFCC_ t1_ 02321130_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.39 87.9 / 77.5
49 HFCC_ t1_ 02320389_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.98 103.3 / 90.1
50 HFCC_ t1_ 02329439_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 4.12 106.9 / 93.2
51 HFCC_ t1_ 02329589_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.72 96.4 / 82.7
52 HFCC_ t1_ 02326006_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 2.82 73.2 / 63.0
53 HFCC_ t1_ 02325824_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.3 85.6 / 79.2
54 HFCC_ t1_ 02325820_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.19 82.8 / 71.6
55 HFCC_ t1_ 02325740_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.87 100.3 / 89.4
56 HFCC_ t1_ 02322206_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 4.52 117.3 / 101.2
57 HFCC_ t1_ 02322221_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 4.55 118.0 / 104.2
58 HFCC_ t1_ 02325462_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.46 89.8 / 78.1
59 HFCC_ t1_ 02324314_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.44 89.2 / 76.9
60 HFCC_ t1_ 02326014_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.98 103.1 / 91.6
61 HFCC_ t1_ 02326060_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.12 81.0 / 72.0
62 HFCC_ t1_ 02326260_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.94 102.2 / 89.1
63 HFCC_ t1_ 02324632_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 4.28 111.1 / 94.3
64 HFCC_ t1_ 02326436_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 4.94 128.1 / 110.6
65 HFCC_ t1_ 02326413_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.91 101.4 / 89.4
66 HFCC_ t1_ 02326373_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 4.35 112.8 / 95.9
67 HFCC_ t1_ 02326141_ TrkB_ 0006_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 1:19 3.49 96.4 / 77.1
68 HFCC_ t1_ 02325052_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 4:42 4.12 110.9 / 91.0
69 HFCC_ t1_ 02325323_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 3.18 82.4 / 73.0
70 HFCC_ t1_ 02326434_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 4:42 4.95 133.2 / 111.3
71 HFCC_ t1_ 02325598_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 1:19 3.68 101.6 / 80.9
72 HFCC_ t1_ 02325669_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 1:19 3.22 88.7 / 90.5
73 HFCC_ t1_ 02326372_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 4:42 4.62 124.1 / 101.5
74 HFCC_ t1_ 02326276_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 4.05 105.1 / 88.8
75 HFCC_ t1_ 02325822_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 4:42 3.37 90.6 / 75.6
76 HFCC_ t1_ 02325028_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 4:42 3.74 100.5 / 82.8
77 HFCC_ t1_ 02324889_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 0:25 2.89 79.8 / 73.8
78 HFCC_ t1_ 02326335_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 4:42 3.73 100.2 / 83.9
79 HFCC_ t1_ 02324389_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 4.31 111.9 / 98.7
80 HFCC_ t1_ 02322944_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 20:00 6.22 161.2 / 141.8
81 HFCC_ t1_ 02322670_ TrkB_ 0005_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/29/2009 4:42 3.56 95.6 / 78.6
82 HFCC_ t1_ 02328043_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 22:05 2.83 77.7 / 65.0
83 HFCC_ t1_ 02328043_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 22:05 2.8 77.4 / 62.2
84 HFCC_ t1_ 02328225_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 22:05 3.81 104.5 / 83.1
85 HFCC_ t1_ 02327901_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 22:05 4.11 112.8 / 91.4
86 HFCC_ t1_ 02327763_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 22:05 3.8 104.4 / 85.4
87 HFCC_ t1_ 02328043_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 20:57 2.8 76.7 / 62.6
88 HFCC_ t1_ 02327128_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 17:35 3.47 95.8 / 77.3
89 HFCC_ t1_ 02328019_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 18:24 3.1 82.9 / 69.2
90 HFCC_ t1_ 02328043_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 18:24 2.8 74.9 / 64.2
91 HFCC_ t1_ 02328039_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 22:05 4.18 114.9 / 93.3
92 HFCC_ t1_ 02328151_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 19:20 3.96 107.2 / 90.2
93 HFCC_ t1_ 02328151_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 22:05 3.95 108.5 / 88.5
94 HFCC_ t1_ 02328160_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 17:02 3.77 104.0 / 85.1
95 HFCC_ t1_ 02328019_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 16:53 3.1 85.2 / 69.5
96 HFCC_ t1_ 02323729_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 14:29 4.25 104.2 / 94.2
97 HFCC_ t1_ 02327458_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 14:29 3.78 92.7 / 84.3
98 HFCC_ t1_ 02327387_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 16:02 2.81 78.0 / 63.1
99 HFCC_ t1_ 02327229_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 14:29 4.32 106.0 / 100.7
100 HFCC_ t1_ 02323673_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 14:29 4.92 120.6 / 110.0
101 HFCC_ t1_ 02326092_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 14:29 3.8 93.3 / 84.6
102 HFCC_ t1_ 02326516_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 14:29 3.3 80.9 / 72.4
103 HFCC_ t1_ 02326230_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 14:29 3.81 93.5 / 84.2
104 HFCC_ t1_ 02327767_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 16:02 3.75 104.1 / 83.5
105 HFCC_ t1_ 02327874_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-13 9/28/2009 16:02 3.21 88.9 / 71.1

CPU Time Average 3.854


Now the 920 rig....

920 Rig (BOBS-FARM-14)

WU # Result Name Device Name Return Time CPU Time (hours) Claimed/ Granted
1 HFCC_ t1_ 02320599_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 16:33 4.1 113.9 / 106.5
2 HFCC_ t1_ 02320825_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 15:44 3.38 93.9 / 85.7
3 HFCC_ t1_ 02320530_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 15:44 4.26 118.2 / 119.0
4 HFCC_ t1_ 02320916_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 4.4 124.8 / 114.9
5 HFCC_ t1_ 02329026_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 3.92 111.1 / 88.0
6 HFCC_ t1_ 02329321_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 3.62 102.7 / 81.1
7 HFCC_ t1_ 02322695_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 2.57 73.0 / 56.6
8 HFCC_ t1_ 02323584_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 15:44 4.75 132.0 / 86.8
9 HFCC_ t1_ 02322979_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 3.73 105.8 / 82.0
10 HFCC_ t1_ 02323151_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 3.59 101.9 / 88.9
11 HFCC_ t1_ 02323333_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 2.87 79.9 / 72.4
12 HFCC_ t1_ 02323550_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 3.54 100.3 / 95.8
13 HFCC_ t1_ 02323584_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 15:44 4.73 131.3 / 115.1
14 HFCC_ t1_ 02323665_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 4.85 137.5 / 84.0
15 HFCC_ t1_ 02322695_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 2.59 73.5 / 57.9
16 HFCC_ t1_ 02317114_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 3.55 100.8 / 94.4
17 HFCC_ t1_ 02316065_ TrkB_ 0005_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 3.57 101.1 / 64.4
18 HFCC_ t1_ 02316175_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 3.97 112.5 / 88.1
19 HFCC_ t1_ 02316497_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 3:18 3.31 93.6 / 87.0
20 HFCC_ t1_ 02313793_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 2:34 3.36 95.5 / 67.3
21 HFCC_ t1_ 02315748_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 22:36 3.7 104.1 / 95.0
22 HFCC_ t1_ 02315892_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 22:36 3.54 99.8 / 83.8
23 HFCC_ t1_ 02314017_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 23:45 3.83 108.0 / 88.7
24 HFCC_ t1_ 02316139_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 23:45 3.43 96.6 / 93.3
25 HFCC_ t1_ 02316620_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 0:51 3.74 106.3 / 99.2
26 HFCC_ t1_ 02316609_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 0:19 2.78 78.8 / 64.4
27 HFCC_ t1_ 02316581_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 22:36 3.35 94.4 / 82.8
28 HFCC_ t1_ 02315745_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 22:36 3.68 103.8 / 91.0
29 HFCC_ t1_ 02316350_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 23:45 3.18 89.7 / 82.9
30 HFCC_ t1_ 02315208_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 0:13 3.87 109.7 / 101.9
31 HFCC_ t1_ 02316497_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 23:45 3.33 93.8 / 84.8
32 HFCC_ t1_ 02315724_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/30/2009 12:51 4.39 124.5 / 102.4
33 HFCC_ t1_ 02317057_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 4.01 112.4 / 105.5
34 HFCC_ t1_ 02317028_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.59 100.4 / 88.5
35 HFCC_ t1_ 02317051_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.85 107.7 / 100.8
36 HFCC_ t1_ 02317051_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.85 107.8 / 95.1
37 HFCC_ t1_ 02317051_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.85 107.8 / 86.1
38 HFCC_ t1_ 02317057_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 4.01 112.3 / 102.6
39 HFCC_ t1_ 02317057_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 4.02 112.7 / 104.2
40 HFCC_ t1_ 02317057_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 4.03 112.7 / 105.5
41 HFCC_ t1_ 02317057_ TrkB_ 0005_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 4.02 112.6 / 92.1
42 HFCC_ t1_ 02316779_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.68 103.2 / 93.0
43 HFCC_ t1_ 02316791_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 4.13 115.6 / 111.3
44 HFCC_ t1_ 02316767_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.93 110.0 / 74.7
45 HFCC_ t1_ 02316767_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.96 111.0 / 97.7
46 HFCC_ t1_ 02316811_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.43 95.9 / 76.4
47 HFCC_ t1_ 02316779_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.69 103.4 / 91.5
48 HFCC_ t1_ 02316779_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.69 103.4 / 94.1
49 HFCC_ t1_ 02316791_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 4.17 116.7 / 78.7
50 HFCC_ t1_ 02316779_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.67 102.7 / 84.3
51 HFCC_ t1_ 02316790_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 4.16 116.4 / 92.2
52 HFCC_ t1_ 02316790_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 4.13 115.8 / 94.8
53 HFCC_ t1_ 02316767_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.93 110.2 / 102.3
54 HFCC_ t1_ 02314479_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.78 105.8 / 97.5
55 HFCC_ t1_ 02316191_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 4:42 4.75 130.0 / 128.5
56 HFCC_ t1_ 02316931_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 0:58 2.94 81.0 / 75.3
57 HFCC_ t1_ 02316944_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 20:00 3.92 109.8 / 104.1
58 HFCC_ t1_ 02316932_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 4:42 3.81 104.1 / 87.0
59 HFCC_ t1_ 02316932_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 4:42 3.8 104.0 / 101.3
60 HFCC_ t1_ 02316642_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 21:03 2.76 74.7 / 67.4
61 HFCC_ t1_ 02316932_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 4:42 3.8 103.9 / 86.3
62 HFCC_ t1_ 02316932_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 4:42 3.8 103.9 / 93.2
63 HFCC_ t1_ 02315920_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 20:34 2.91 79.0 / 63.8
64 HFCC_ t1_ 02316932_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 4:42 3.81 104.2 / 87.0
65 HFCC_ t1_ 02314638_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 4:42 4.29 117.3 / 92.5
66 HFCC_ t1_ 02316534_ TrkB_ 0005_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 0:58 3.66 100.9 / 79.1
67 HFCC_ t1_ 02314197_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 0:58 3.88 106.8 / 104.2
68 HFCC_ t1_ 02315596_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 20:05 4.27 116.5 / 90.3
69 HFCC_ t1_ 02315797_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 16:02 4.45 124.0 / 66.0
70 HFCC_ t1_ 02315705_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 0:58 4.15 114.2 / 90.3
71 HFCC_ t1_ 02315468_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 17:32 4.14 112.7 / 91.8
72 HFCC_ t1_ 02310063_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 17:32 3.89 106.1 / 84.7
73 HFCC_ t1_ 02312399_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 0:58 3.79 104.5 / 86.1
74 HFCC_ t1_ 02312716_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 14:29 4.1 116.5 / 101.3
75 HFCC_ t1_ 02313956_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 17:32 3.73 101.5 / 89.5
76 HFCC_ t1_ 02313964_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 17:32 3.38 92.1 / 75.2
77 HFCC_ t1_ 02315413_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 0:58 3.69 101.5 / 84.0
78 HFCC_ t1_ 02316483_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 14:29 3.83 108.8 / 68.6
79 HFCC_ t1_ 02316578_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 0:58 3.58 98.7 / 77.1
80 HFCC_ t1_ 02316350_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 20:05 3.16 86.3 / 79.6
81 HFCC_ t1_ 02316462_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/29/2009 0:58 4.53 124.8 / 95.9
82 HFCC_ t1_ 02315376_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 8:40 3.36 95.6 / 66.4
83 HFCC_ t1_ 02316581_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 10:03 3.34 94.5 / 82.5
84 HFCC_ t1_ 02315376_ TrkB_ 0004_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 11:02 3.37 95.6 / 87.5
85 HFCC_ t1_ 02315376_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 10:15 3.36 95.3 / 89.3
86 HFCC_ t1_ 02315376_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 9:20 3.36 95.5 / 80.6
87 HFCC_ t1_ 02315375_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 8:08 3.65 103.8 / 97.1
88 HFCC_ t1_ 02316505_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 11:13 3.17 90.1 / 79.7
89 HFCC_ t1_ 02316516_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 12:49 2.75 78.2 / 74.9
90 HFCC_ t1_ 02315514_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 12:49 4.09 116.4 / 76.1
91 HFCC_ t1_ 02316486_ TrkB_ 0008_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 8:40 3.55 101.0 / 95.4
92 HFCC_ t1_ 02313309_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 14:29 4.3 122.0 / 118.6
93 HFCC_ t1_ 02316094_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 14:29 4.39 124.6 / 81.3
94 HFCC_ t1_ 02316077_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 12:49 4.05 115.1 / 93.2
95 HFCC_ t1_ 02316020_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 8:17 3.93 111.9 / 93.9
96 HFCC_ t1_ 02315373_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 6:42 3.57 101.1 / 87.8
97 HFCC_ t1_ 02314805_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 4:55 4.46 125.9 / 103.9
98 HFCC_ t1_ 02312454_ TrkB_ 0000_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 7:51 4.08 115.5 / 111.5
99 HFCC_ t1_ 02316486_ TrkB_ 0007_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 6:42 3.54 99.7 / 89.1
100 HFCC_ t1_ 02315189_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 4:55 4.03 113.8 / 111.7
101 HFCC_ t1_ 02314640_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 6:42 4.46 125.8 / 120.5
102 HFCC_ t1_ 02316835_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 4:55 3.67 103.6 / 92.7
103 HFCC_ t1_ 02316856_ TrkB_ 0003_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 7:08 4.28 121.2 / 121.3
104 HFCC_ t1_ 02315032_ TrkB_ 0001_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 4:55 4.26 120.2 / 110.6
105 HFCC_ t1_ 02315877_ TrkB_ 0002_ 0-- BOBS-FARM-14 9/28/2009 4:55 3.92 110.5 / 104.1

CPU Time Average 3.779

Note that I cut out the status, which are all valid, and the sent time column to save some room. I could find no easy way to format this better, so it's just a raw paste.....


*************************************************
Bottom line for 105 WUs each
860 CPU Time Average 3.854
920 CPU Time Average 3.779

The 920 is carrying a slight lead here, 0.075 of an hour. That works out to 4.5 minutes. I do not know if this is statistically significant....Time will tell.

On the next batch, I will not try to paste the individual WUs. That will likely be a sample of several hundred WUs.....

Bob

guys your work and dedication is something outstanding .. I am trying to clean my head after a long stressful period of time/burnout.. thats why I often peak rather than actively input.. bob, your military training is paying back, lovely work as usual (neat, concise, structured, scientific) :up: ..

in some days I will have the c2d jcool have me as a present and will report together with the ram memories martijn gave me ..

best of all for you my friends :up:

Juan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duh

guys your work and dedication is something outstanding .. I am trying to clean my head after a long stressful period of time/burnout.. thats why I often peak rather than actively input.. bob, your military training is paying back, lovely work as usual (neat, concise, structured, scientific) :up: ..

in some days I will have the c2d jcool have me as a present and will report together with the ram memories martijn gave me ..

best of all for you my friends :up:

Juan

---

What, martijn gave you rams? Heh, I gave you ram too, remember - now what are you gonna do with all that ram :D :up:

Awesome work bob, that's pretty much what I expected tho, virtually identical :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcool

What, martijn gave you rams? Heh, I gave you ram too, remember - now what are you gonna do with all that ram :D :up:

Awesome work bob, that's pretty much what I expected tho, virtually identical :)

---

ram for the lappie ( kingston 2x512)which was coughing when trying to use boinc and websurf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martijn

You honestly don't want to know. the Netherlands is quite expensive, we pay ~€.40 net for 1 kWh. I believe Belgium and Germany were about as expensive, but I could be wrong. Do keep in mind that all our power lines are underground and we rarely have black- or brownouts. I never needed my UPS, the last blackout was 3 years ago.

---

we have better stuff down here.. your 110 mbits lame pipes and you underground electric are no match for what we have :ROTF: :rofl: if you ever visit me here ( a friend of mine is Dutch and lives here in buenos aires) I ll tell you, hi Martijn, :welcome: to the jungle :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 123bob

Emu, just curious to know how both of your rigs Boinc bench. My rigs are as follows; the 860 is 3,376/11,851. The 920 rig is 3,382/10,853. Close in Whetstone but the 860 is almost 1000 points higher in Dhrystone.
Bob

---

Bob nice stats there! :D

the i7 860 is 3656/12205
the i7 920 is 3673/11793

I'll work out some averages for WUs for each of them when I get home from work tonight.

emu

Most excellent work Bob...Goosey is blown away impressed. Perhaps a private penalty for all that goodness...:rofl:

OK, after tonight's update I have some PPD numbers. Only five days worth, but I think these are worth sharing. They both appear to be reasonably settled into the HFCC WUs. Remember, this is with both rigs at 3.7 gig.

920 Rig

10/2/09 0:008:10:59:18 32,373 53
10/1/09 0:008:22:37:26 35,344 54
9/30/09 0:006:03:52:55 24,962 39
9/29/09 0:007:18:16:47 31,486 49
9/28/09 0:008:18:14:21 35,678 55
Average PPD = 31,968.6


860 rig

10/2/09 0:008:03:56:55 30,764 51
10/1/09 0:008:19:30:51 32,655 54
9/30/09 0:008:15:40:42 31,515 50
9/29/09 0:010:04:12:05 36,808 61
9/28/09 0:009:16:20:31 34,293 59
Average PPD = 33,207

So, they are in the same area. The 860 scored a little higher due to the bad day the 920 had on 9/30. I'm not sure what that was about but I think it would even out as I run more days of data.

I'm thinking about making a max clock attempt and seeing how far I can get each one. With the individual WU data, and this data, I'm pretty convinced they are on equal footing clock-for-clock. What remains to be seen is what happens to power efficiency if I force max clocks.

Clearly this data shows that if you're not going to push the rig really hard, the 860 is a more power efficient choice for pure crunching.

Bob

Great stats Bob. I'll update this post with WCG average PPD when WCG comes back up.

My feeling is that if you want power efficient then the i7 860 is the way to go just dont expect to be able to oc it like the 920s it will need much more juice. I'm really keen to find the max OC I can get with stock voltages.

Maybe I jumped the gun on the update? If so, I'll edit my data above. It looked like I had full data for 10/2....If it's more, I think I'm OK with that....:D

Bob

Bob,
I see you are dividing total points by "calendar days" which doesn't really reflect what the machines are producing due to varying amounts of run time per calendar day caused by the validation process and WU reporting timing. A more accurate calculation is the average number of points per hour of runtime.

For the 920:

962.01 hours of CPU time
159,843 total points
Average points per hour of runtime 166.16
Multiply by 192 to get a theoretical "perfect" calendar day with 8 days of CPU run time 31,903 ppd.

For the 860

1091.7 hours of CPU time
166,035 total points
Average points per hour of runtime 152.09
Multiply by 192 to get a theoretical "perfect" calendar day with 8 days of CPU run time 29,201 ppd

Looking at these numbers, the 920 is outperforming the 860 by about 9%.

Hmm nice pickup fallwind this removes the fluctuation in calculated runtime due to all sorts of variables.

Using your calcs I get 164.4 PPH for the 860 and 174.4 PPH for the 920. Both at 4GHz

this would give me a 31561 PPD average for the 860 and a 33487 PPD average for the 920. which is about a 6% difference between the two.

So 8% differemce between 4GHz and 3.7Ghz for the 860 at least. 5% between the 920s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallwind

Bob,
I see you are dividing total points by "calendar days" which doesn't really reflect what the machines are producing due to varying amounts of run time per calendar day caused by the validation process and WU reporting timing. A more accurate calculation is the average number of points per hour of runtime.

For the 920:

962.01 hours of CPU time
159,843 total points
Average points per hour of runtime 166.16
Multiply by 192 to get a theoretical "perfect" calendar day with 8 days of CPU run time 31,903 ppd.

For the 860

1091.7 hours of CPU time
166,035 total points
Average points per hour of runtime 152.09
Multiply by 192 to get a theoretical "perfect" calendar day with 8 days of CPU run time 29,201 ppd

Looking at these numbers, the 920 is outperforming the 860 by about 9%.

---

I'll have to wrap my head around that a bit. Does this mean the 920 is doing better in the quorum? The actual awarded points are subject to the quorum award. Therefore that number would fluctuate a bit?

I also guess I don't understand what the validation process and report timing have to do with the WU CPU time taken.

We've seen by the raw WU calculation that the time taken for WUs is similar. Perhaps it would be interesting to roll the claimed vs granted into the mix too. If I'm correct in understanding the math above, the granted WU sum divided by the WU time sum, should equal your number above for each machine. Yes?

Still gotta give this a bit more thought. Certainly 9% difference is significant. I may have to run a lot longer to take out the possible effect of starting the 860 rig with so many HCC WUs. When I compared WUs, I only used HFCC units.

Well, these rigs are not going anywhere for quite some time, so we can do whatever you guys want to see here...:up:

Certainly thanks for bringing that out. I've never really gotten down to brass tacks of one rig vs another. :toast:

(BTW, don't get too comfortable while my main rigs are out...This "test" is all just part of my master plan to catch back up when the rigs come home. I'm sneaking more hardware onto my account this way...:ROTF: :rofl:)

Bob

OK, since this was bugging me, I cut a bit into my normal Friday "bar-time"....:p:

I took the same 105 WU data sets I had posted previously, added up the total runtime, the total claimed, and the total granted. I then did the math. Note that the WUs report in Boinc points, so I did the final conversion (x7) to WCG points at the end of the strings.

These are all HFCC WUs.

920 rig

Average WU Time 3.779 CPU hours

Claimed points per CPU hour 28.008

Granted points per CPU hour 23.927

Claimed PPD ideal day
BOINC 5,377.471
WCG 37,642.296

Granted PPD ideal day
BOINC 4,594.027
WCG 32,158.186




860 rig


Average WU time 3.854 CPU hours

Claimed points per CPU hour 26.608

Granted points per CPU hour 22.504


Claimed PPD ideal day
BOINC 5,108.75
WCG 35,761.281

Granted PPD ideal day
BOINC 4,320.807
WCG 30,245.647

This WU analysis says that the 920 is 6.3% better when looked at this way.

I'm still going to give more thought to this. The numbers reported in the raw PPD above are actual production. Isn't that what the machine really did? :confused:

In any case, a few more days of data are probably needed.

Regards,
Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 123bob

The numbers reported in the raw PPD above are actual production. Isn't that what the machine really did? :confused:

---

Not really, the numbers you posted are only for WU that were reported and validated during the 24hr period used for stats, not what the machine actually "crunched". Here's an extreme example: a machine crunches through 20 WU in 24 hours, but at 6pm when the stats are run, there are 6 work units "ready to report" and another 6 were inconclusive and therefore didn't validate. This machine will only get credit for 8 WU which is not a true refection of what the machine crunched that day because it crunched 20 WU. Calculating average points per hour of runtime eliminates the above variables and gives you a solid number to compare 2 machines.

Looking at your "claimed vs granted" numbers, the 2 machines are very close percentage wise. The 920 overclaims by 14.6% the 860 overclaims by 15.4%. So it doesn't look like either one is getting disadvantage more than the other in the quorum.

Here's a couple questions on my mind: how many sticks of RAM are in each machine? Is HFCC quorum 1 or quorum 2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallwind

Not really, the numbers you posted are only for WU that were reported and validated during the 24hr period used for stats, not what the machine actually "crunched". Here's an extreme example: a machine crunches through 20 WU in 24 hours, but at 6pm when the stats are run, there are 6 work units "ready to report" and another 6 were inconclusive and therefore didn't validate. This machine will only get credit for 8 WU which is not a true refection of what the machine crunched that day because it crunched 20 WU. Calculating average points per hour of runtime eliminates the above variables and gives you a solid number to compare 2 machines.

Looking at your "claimed vs granted" numbers, the 2 machines are very close percentage wise. The 920 overclaims by 14.6% the 860 overclaims by 15.4%. So it doesn't look like either one is getting disadvantage more than the other in the quorum.

Here's a couple questions on my mind: how many sticks of RAM are in each machine? Is HFCC quorum 1 or quorum 2?

---

I'll answer the last questions first, since it might have more bearing than the rest? The 860 rig is running 2x2gig in double channel. The 920 is running 6 gig, 3x2gig in triple channel. The 920 is running 1800MHz high grade Kingston Ram, the 860 a lower grade Corsair 1600MHz. This never made a difference before, but we are looking for the truth here....IDK. I'm running the timings in the screenies earlier. We've got this weird thing called QPI too.... LMK if something doesn't look right in any of that. I tried to match the rigs.

When we started this test, I switched over to HFCC since it had a quorum of 1. Since we started, it became a quorum of 2.....:mad: So, in my mind, it's no better than HCC in this evaluation. .......And for the record, I'd rather run HCC. That's my project of interest.

Thx for your reply on the math, I think I understand now. Realize on both of these rigs, there are no inconclusive, invalids, errors, "too lates", or any of that. I run my clocks so there are no anomalies. That's why my clocks are lower than most would report, I think....

As to "ready to report" WUs, those would fall into the next day report, therefore, it is important to average over a longer time? No?

I'm about pratical WU production, as I know you are, not "points", so no errors, etc. are allowed. That is lost production in my book and counts against the offending rig. Of the data presented here, I have zero errors, zero invalids, zero "too late", and zero inconclusive WUs.

So, my rigs report only what they have earned. The quorum may make them report late at times, but if I average over days and weeks, does that take out the variance? I think so.

Man, where the hell is Meshmesh when you need him. He had this stuff down cold....

Yo, MM, I know you're reading this. :yepp: Please have Mesh check in here and straighten me out.....:up:

Let's all get this straight, it's a really important point about gauging how our rigs are really doing.....:up:

Regards,
Bob

Hmm.. interesting. Even though I really really REALLY hate math :D
Now where does the difference in PPD lie.. certainly not Dual vs. Tri Channel, I can assure you that. Maybe ramtimings? Unlikely though. Something to do with that QPI link I'd say. Can you further increase the QPI mult on the 860? Or raise BCLK and lower multiplier?

For example, I run my 750 at 200BCLK, which gives 7,2 GT/s bandwidth with the 36x QPI mult (highest there is for the 750).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcool

Hmm.. interesting. Even though I really really REALLY hate math :D
Now where does the difference in PPD lie.. certainly not Dual vs. Tri Channel, I can assure you that. Maybe ramtimings? Unlikely though. Something to do with that QPI link I'd say. Can you further increase the QPI mult on the 860? Or raise BCLK and lower multiplier?

For example, I run my 750 at 200BCLK, which gives 7,2 GT/s bandwidth with the 36x QPI mult (highest there is for the 750).

---

I can and will raise the QPI on either rig, if we need to. Right now they are equal. It is clear that this makes a difference based on the initail results I had with the QPI at x16. It scored low there......

But "the how" we count a PPD difference, seems to be the issue? I don't think the 860 is slacking right now, by my criteria of no errors, etc. Real PPD. ???? IDK.

jcool, can you see a difference in the rigs based on the screenies?

Regards,
Bob

Yeah, I can't imagine dual channel vs triple channel makeing a difference in WCG, same goes for RAM speed and timings. I run my i7 crunchers in dual channel and they seem to produce on par with my main rig with triple. There could be a few % difference, I haven't checked that closely.

Quote:

---

As to "ready to report" WUs, those would fall into the next day report, therefore, it is important to average over a longer time? No?

---

Absolutely! I think 2 weeks would be the minimum to eliminate the variables and get a good average. 30 days even better. But since there is a quorum of 2, you are always at the mercy of your wingman but with enough data points, it "should" average out eventually.

The point I was trying to make in my previous post was it's unfair(at this point in time) to compare the 2 machines in terms of points per calendar day. You have 5 days of stats which is 120 hours. An i7 will produce 8 days or runtime per calenday day or 960 hours in 5 days. The 920 is pretty much spot on with 962 hours, the 860 is way over at 1091 hours. The only way this can happen is if work units that were crunched before the test began have been validated during the test. Effectively the 860 has had a head start. So it's PPD will be skewed higher if you calculate total points divided by calendar days. Dividing total points by CPU time instead of calendar days eliminates this anomaly.

Okey Dokey, I'll leave the rigs alone at 3.7 gig and let them keep piling up data. I do think the leftover HCC units may have been skewing the results a bit. Those are mostly gone now so I'll start with this week's data when it comes in. I only have four HCC units left in the 860 rig's pending validation queue. :up:

What is a little curious to me is that I have a page and a half of HFCC pending val on the 920 rig, and only one WU pending val for the 860 rig right now. I'll keep an eye on that too.

Thx for the help sorting this out.:clap:

Bob

I might be able to help out a little this week.

I got my X3440 in along with mobo. I do not have a good cooler yet, but might be able to get something to work, will have to see.
I have 2 different sets of identical ram. I will run these in the lynfield and the 920. I will get the same oc on both. This should keep any variable out. Except the fact that lynnfield might require more juice to get the same oc due to on-chip pci-e.

Anyway, I do not have a killawatt, but will try to help out as much as I can. I am curious to see if I wasted my time going lynnfield or not. I hope not as I could have built another 920 rig for the same price or a few $ more. Oh well, trial and error right:ROTF:

I should have lynnfield up by tonight and might have to readjust one of my 920's to match. will then try to compare.

I'm sure we all would like to know how it clocks. You may have found a gold nugget there...

Bob

I know you folks don't know me well so if you disagree please just let me know and I'll move along :-)

I think a quicker and more accurate way to create direct comparisons would be to process the same exact WUs (shut BOINC down, copy and paste BOINC data folder, suspend network activity) and then look at total runtime for the entire set. The set would only have to be the max WUs that could be processes in 12 hours because beyond that would not tell us anything different from a statistical perspective.

This eliminates all the caveats when trying to use points as a comparative basis (each WU set is completely different, wingmen, WCG changing target runtime length, when was the last time you ran BOINC benchies, the list goes on). It then becomes very easy to identify changes that produce significant improvements ... BCLK, vCore, QPI, RAM amount, bandwidth, timings, HD vs. SSD, graphics, power usage 110 vac vs 220 vac. You can add any data element you want and as long as you continue to use the same WU set you will have directly comparable results. I know there is a lot of conventional wisdom on some of these elements so we could skip testing those ones (or do a quick sanity check to make sure) and move on to those we do not already have a handle on.

Now someone will come along and ask if we can swap WU between different OS, the answer is no and that is where we have to handle the averages as best we can. First I would suggest that comparisons be done within compatible architectures. Instead of trial and error I could email WCG as they already have these groups defined. Once there is a *best* consensus within a group we could start to compare runtimes from X number of WUs between groups for the same subproject ... I am still trying to stay away from points because of all the issues mentioned. We certainly will need to refine this strategy because the RICE and CMD2 subprojects have soft and hard stops based on time limits if you have not finished the WU. We can figure out those deets when we get there.

If there is interest I will start to lay out what we elements we want to test and create some form of data structure (Excel or maybe some free SQL tool). I think this will not only provide results we can all benefit from right away but also positions us with a testing methodology to quickly evaluate new platforms, OS, crunching efficiency theories etc.

All that being said, thanks for your patience, and is there a configuration you would like me to test on my i7 920 C0 (currently at 19*207) and are there any suggestions on a cheap and accurate multimeter?

I know the original focus is on power efficiency but for those of use not running farms and/or not real concerned about power costs I would suggest that 1% improvement in runtime is significant but also at the bottom limit of what we should be looking for. Roughly for an i7:
8 cores * 24 = 192 hours
192 * 1% = 1.92 hours
on average you would turn one extra WU every two days giving an ROI of just under 1 week for each 12 hour test that improves runtime by 1% ... yes, I'm convinced this is a good low end target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snow Crash

I know you folks don't know me well so if you disagree please just let me know and I'll move along :-)

---

Good idea. I would like to see the results based on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 123bob

Okey Dokey, I'll leave the rigs alone at 3.7 gig and let them keep piling up data. I do think the leftover HCC units may have been skewing the results a bit. Those are mostly gone now so I'll start with this week's data when it comes in. I only have four HCC units left in the 860 rig's pending validation queue. :up:

What is a little curious to me is that I have a page and a half of HFCC pending val on the 920 rig, and only one WU pending val for the 860 rig right now. I'll keep an eye on that too.

Thx for the help sorting this out.:clap:

Bob

---

The 860 stats from Sept 28-30 are what is throwing things off. There's well over 8 days CPU time on each day which is normal when switching from quorum 2 to quorum 1 projects. Now that the HCC WU's are gone a clearer piture for the 860 will emerge. The PV queue for the 920 will throw off next weeks stats though so maybe we'll look at the average starting on the 1st and run the test through the 15th or something. Looking forward to next weeks stats! :up:

Quote:

---

I think a quicker and more accurate way to create direct comparisons would be to process the same exact WUs (shut BOINC down, copy and paste BOINC data folder, suspend network activity) and then look at total runtime for the entire set. The set would only have to be the max WUs that could be processes in 12 hours because beyond that would not tell us anything different from a statistical perspective.

---

You're absolutely right. That would give a 100% accurate picture of WCG processing power. It would involve a bit of planning and taking both machines offline for a day or so(which no cruncher likes to do! :) ) to run the batch of WU but would provide a clear comparison.

I need a new HSF and quick. I was running the x3440 on stock cooler; 3.8ghz@1.3v. normal op temps were in the low 40's, ran WCG and skyrocketed to 90-95c. I put it at 3.5ghz @1.2v on stock hsf load temps 80c. I cannot believe they provided such a crappy hsf for this cpu :mad: :shakes:

I really do not want to spend too much. Looks like the coolermaster @$30 might be the best hsf/cost, but I do not know that it would provide adequate cooling. Next in-line would be a megahalem for $65 plus shipping, or a noctua for 65-70 plus shipping. So its either go cheap or double the price for about the best air cooler atm.

I would get another TRUE if they would ever release the bolt-through kit :shakes:. I guess when i finally decide to go H2O, I will have some spare coolers:ROTF:

I am leaning towards the megahalem, du to complexity of the mounting for the coolermaster, plus I want maximum performance. I also hear that the megahalems have a better machined base than the true and mounting is far superior than the TRUE. Guess I will order one. Need to find another psu too as I am collecting too many gpu's:rofl:

Looks like I might not be able to help till I get adequate cooling; maybe I shoud run stock 860 clocks and see how it does:shrug:

If its any help I have a Megahalem on my i7 920 (1336) and at 1.26Vcore its at 65 DegC (Max) load with two xigmatek fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snow Crash

I know you folks don't know me well so if you disagree please just let me know and I'll move along :-)

I think a quicker and more accurate way to create direct comparisons would be to process the same exact WUs (shut BOINC down, copy and paste BOINC data folder, suspend network activity) and then look at total runtime for the entire set. The set would only have to be the max WUs that could be processes in 12 hours because beyond that would not tell us anything different from a statistical perspective.

This eliminates all the caveats when trying to use points as a comparative basis (each WU set is completely different, wingmen, WCG changing target runtime length, when was the last time you ran BOINC benchies, the list goes on). It then becomes very easy to identify changes that produce significant improvements ... BCLK, vCore, QPI, RAM amount, bandwidth, timings, HD vs. SSD, graphics, power usage 110 vac vs 220 vac. You can add any data element you want and as long as you continue to use the same WU set you will have directly comparable results. I know there is a lot of conventional wisdom on some of these elements so we could skip testing those ones (or do a quick sanity check to make sure) and move on to those we do not already have a handle on.

Now someone will come along and ask if we can swap WU between different OS, the answer is no and that is where we have to handle the averages as best we can. First I would suggest that comparisons be done within compatible architectures. Instead of trial and error I could email WCG as they already have these groups defined. Once there is a *best* consensus within a group we could start to compare runtimes from X number of WUs between groups for the same subproject ... I am still trying to stay away from points because of all the issues mentioned. We certainly will need to refine this strategy because the RICE and CMD2 subprojects have soft and hard stops based on time limits if you have not finished the WU. We can figure out those deets when we get there.

If there is interest I will start to lay out what we elements we want to test and create some form of data structure (Excel or maybe some free SQL tool). I think this will not only provide results we can all benefit from right away but also positions us with a testing methodology to quickly evaluate new platforms, OS, crunching efficiency theories etc.

All that being said, thanks for your patience, and is there a configuration you would like me to test on my i7 920 C0 (currently at 19*207) and are there any suggestions on a cheap and accurate multimeter?

I know the original focus is on power efficiency but for those of use not running farms and/or not real concerned about power costs I would suggest that 1% improvement in runtime is significant but also at the bottom limit of what we should be looking for. Roughly for an i7:
8 cores * 24 = 192 hours
192 * 1% = 1.92 hours
on average you would turn one extra WU every two days giving an ROI of just under 1 week for each 12 hour test that improves runtime by 1% ... yes, I'm convinced this is a good low end target.

---

Good idea! So we just run a batch of X WUs and check the completion times right?
If so, make sure to include enough WUs in the process so that highly multithreaded machines won't be half idle. Which presents a problem.. 24 WUs would be a good number for SP rigs, it's divisible by 8 (Core i5/i7), by 4 (i5 750 or older Quads), and by 12 (Gulftown). However, my Dual Gainestown as well as the Quad Opteron (16 Threads) would have an "idle problem" there.

So I'd suggest 24 "test"-WUs and just leaving the multi sockets out? Since most people crunch on single sockets.

Some thoughts on WCG benching - HTH.

Fallwind's "BOINC data snapshot" method is definitely the most accurate way of comparing crunching speeds. I did this a while back to compare speeds under XP-32 vs under XP-64 + 64-bit client, on the one QX9650 machine. (64-bit was about 0.5% faster, for HCC).
So you definitely can run the same set of data on 2 versions of Windoze on the same machine.
However, Linux BOINC data files are not compatible with Windoze ones, so you can't compare across these OSes. I don't know about Linux vs Mac OSX (both *nix).
I don't know whether you can run the same data on different machines with same OS. I know the BOINC system is fussy about device IDs, and won't let you crunch, upload and claim WUs from the wrong device, so you can't do "sneakernet", but it may let you just run foreign WUs. (I forget whether, in my win-32/Win-64 comparo, I had to give the machine the same LAN device ID)
Remember NOT to let BOINC try to upload the same set of results more than once. Run tests with network activity disabled.

To make results comparable, whether using the data snapshot method or credits awarded/hr, you need to be running the same mix of WCG projects, especially with HT (critical). Even without HT, different projects need different amounts of main memory access, and hence get different amounts of memory bus contention. Example: On my A64X2 (512kb cache/core), PerfMonitor 1.0.0.8 shows that HCMD2 gets 99.6% L2 cache success rate, while faah gets around 87%.
Easiest is to run just 1 project.

If wou want the most accurate comparisons without using the data snapshot method, and a minimum number of WUs crunched, I suggest:
* Pick a project with a quorum of 1. If HFCC has moved to Q2, I guess that leaves faah.
If that's unsuitable, pick a project with minimum variation in run-times. HCC scores here, but you'll need a larger sample size to average out the wingmen.
* If using a quorum of 1, look in your Results Status pages (not Device Stats), and pick out only those valid results that had a quorum of 1, ie don't count check-WUs or repair-WUs where a wingman got Invalid. That eliminates the wingmen.
Then calculate average Credits Awarded/hr.
There is some variation in CA for faah WUs of the same length, and I suspect that longer faah WUs get higher CA/hr.
There is probably variation in CA/hr between WU batches, too. See Sekerob's Charts.

PS 1: To avoid confusion when talking about BOINC or WCG "points", note that BOINC calls them "credits", so I suggest you use these names too, ie 1 BOINC "credit" = 7 WCG "points".
PS 2: I was hoping that i7-860 would be a clear leader in energy/credit, but it seems to need more volts than 920 @ same clock, and crunches more slowly. I'll stay with LGA775 until 32nm.
PS 3: Thanks for all of your work, as well as being first kids on the block to risk forking out $$ for Lynnfields.

This has come up a couple of times so a quick recap on Zero Redundancy (ZR) quorum:
ZR is a misleading term because for every 10 WUs that WCG sends out for these subprojects (currently HFCC and FAAH but it was also for DDDT and FLU) they will send out a second copy so it is not really zero redundancy! They do this to make sure everything is on the up and up. If you have any errored WUs on any subproject they will start sending you 2 quorum WUs for your ZR subprojects until you can prove that you are reliable again.
To see what quorum a subproject uses there is a skinny little column about in the middle of this chart ... http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/fo...d?thread=17855

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcool

Good idea! So we just run a batch of X WUs and check the completion times right?

---

Yes

Quote:

---

If so, make sure to include enough WUs in the process so that highly multithreaded machines won't be half idle. Which presents a problem.. 24 WUs would be a good number for SP rigs, it's divisible by 8 (Core i5/i7), by 4 (i5 750 or older Quads), and by 12 (Gulftown). However, my Dual Gainestown as well as the Quad Opteron (16 Threads) would have an "idle problem" there.

So I'd suggest 24 "test"-WUs and just leaving the multi sockets out? Since most people crunch on single sockets.

---

Got it ... I messed up my calcs ... nice catch. Yes, 24 is a much better number of WUs to test although going to 48 gets us to an even divisor across all current and near future core count (1,2,3,4,6,8,12,16) but I can see where crunchers are going to be hard pressed to go down for 12 hours as it is so I think your suggestion of 24 is great.

I will be working on a basline for 24 HFCC WUs over the next couple of days and I will be trying to pick out WUs that are more or less uniform so there is not too much raw idle at the end. Oh ... Oh ... I need to go talk to Mr. Wizard ... why not build the set from the same exact WU ??? This way we could scale up or down as much as necessary to handle overall runtime and core count linearly. Looks like I'll have some crunching downtime next week as I work out the details of how to make this happen.

As a start, what elemtents do we want to capture?
CPU
vCore
vTT
CPU model
CPU Stepping
CPU Multi
CPU BLCK
QPI
Thread count (HT on/off)

DIMM
vDIMM
Amount
Speed
Channels (1, 2, 3)
Timings

HDD
SSD

Graphics

110 / 220

Headless

Sounds good Snow Crash. HDD vs. SSD shouldn't make any difference, but we can include it regardless.

When measuring efficiency, we should also include rating, make and model of the PSU used - that way we can roughly calculate the net power draw of a certain rig w/o PSU losses (SPCR has great efficiency tables for their tested PSUs at different load levels, for example). Also any other components drawing power should be mentioned, for example, a watercooled rig with 2 pumps and 10 fans will draw a lot more than an open air test bench-like setup with just 2 fans or so.

great read.

posted a link to this on TPU.

Agreed that an average runtime of a fixed number of the exact same WUs would be the most accurate way to test the things we are in control of. Namely, the machine doing the crunching.

The "back half" of WU processing, the WCG initial scoring algorithm, your "wingmen", the quorum scoring algorithm, the timing of a days data, we have zero control of.

The fixed WU group is a better way than my post #46 here. What I figured there was to take a large enough sample to try to wash out variances in the WUs themselves. The exact same WUs would eliminate that variance. Truthfully, that post was the one that counted, to me, to show that the 860 was in the same "ballpark" with the 920. The fixed WU group would provide perhaps a faster, more accurate picture. The loss of some WUs would be in the name of science, even though I don't like losing any WUs.

However, the method of that post #46 would appear to be an alternative if you don't want one of the rigs to lose production while crunching the test batch. The trick to this would be to use as large a sample group as you can stand to process. I used excel to process the data. Now that the sheet is set up, it's not too bad to cut and paste pages of WUs into it. We would have to use some "uncertainty bars" around that type of data though.

I hesitated to post score totals, knowing that the "back-end" variances would come into play. I'm happy to see that it sparked the conversation in this thread about what the test metric should look like.

I will start a fixed WU run sometime today. I'll report here if I come up with any issues making this happen.

Regards,
Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fitseries3

great read.

posted a link to this on TPU.

---

Yo fits, good to see you. Hope all is well.

Bob

It'll be interesting to see if a machine will crunch transplanted WU's! In reality only the second machine will have to be taken offline for the test. The first machine can crunch the WU and return them. On the second one you'll have to disable network activity, crunch the WU's and collect the data, and then copy back the original BOINC folders for that machine. It can then continue on it's way.

Personally, I'd transplant the entire "BOINC" and "Program Data" folders over to the second machine. BOINC should recognize the hardware changes at startup and then run the benchmark. For the sake of accuracy, we can exclude and WU's that were "in progress" when the transplant took place. Also the last 7 WU's should be excluded since the CPU is not running 8 threads while crunching those.

Here's a cool idea: save a copy of the BOINC folders for future use! Whenever you want to test some mew hardware, you'll have a reference set up WU's to crunch to compare it to other hardware. You could even zip it up and email it to other members. :up: I'll have a Gulftown up and running shortly and would be more than happy to run the test.

OK, I did it.

Here's how.

The 860 rig is the "host" machine.
The 920 is the "client" or "target" machine.

1. I suspended crunching on both.

2. Aborted the current running WUs (Yes, I tried REAL hard not to scream...:eek::(;)

3. I aborted all "waiting to run" WUs on the 860 rig, except for 24 HFCC WUs. These are the test WUs.

4. "Updated project" so the queue was cleared. Only 24 units sitting there.

5. I aborted ALL the WUs on the 920 rig. (With the same screaming as above. I think the rig screamed louder though....:rofl:)

6. "Updated project" so the entire queue was cleared. No WUs in this rig.

7. I copied the entire "BOINC" folder, under the app data folder on the 860 rig, on to a USB stick.

8. I made a backup of the BOINC folder of the original 920 rig so I can recover it later, I hope.....

9. I copied the BOINC folder from the 860 rig into the app data folder of the 920 rig.

10. I disconnected the network cable from both rigs.

11. Rebooted the 860 rig and resumed crunching. It started on the test units.

12. Rebooted the 920 rig, it then showed the test WUs. Ran benches, which turned out the same as reported before, then resumed. It is now crunching test WUs.

We'll see in about 12 hours. Probably more like tomorrow morning since I ain't staying up until 4 am here....though I may get up early...:yepp::clap:

So, the cut and paste data will come from the Boinc mgr screens of both rigs. I hope it formats well for import into excel.

May the crunching gods forgive me for blowing 24 WUs worth of time here....:worship: The test WUs from the 920 rig are garbage after the test....

I have these 24 units still on the stick for future use if needed.

Bob

Looking forward to the results of this test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallwind

Here's a cool idea: save a copy of the BOINC folders for future use! Whenever you want to test some mew hardware, you'll have a reference set up WU's to crunch to compare it to other hardware. You could even zip it up and email it to other members. :up: I'll have a Gulftown up and running shortly and would be more than happy to run the test.

---

The only issues I see here is that the "app data>BOINC" folder contains your BOINC key. It also appears to contain another "authenticator" key in the "lookup_account.xml" file.... I do not know if that's like your account authenticator key. We know what that means, if it is.

Could they be stripped out? I think they could. That would mean the person receiving the WUs would have to edit the files to put their own keys in it. I think it would run after that...We know for sure we can change BOINC keys. That's how I'm contributing to Scott's account.

I was unable to make the 920 rig see the test WUs when I tried to copy just the WU "projects" folder by itself. It appears to need the other data in the main folder to discover it's status.

Bob

123bob, your commitment & dedication to this analysis is second to none.:up::up::up::clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lu523

Looking forward to the results of this test.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAK1640

123bob, your commitment & dedication to this analysis is second to none.:up::up::up::clap:

---

Ditto.

I'd just like to express my gratitude for you guys putting this together.

I'm on the verge of getting a new job (just waiting for them to get the drug screen results back), which may hopefully allow me to get another rig going (I've been gone for quite a while). My electricity costs nearly 20 cents per KWH so the results will help me make a better decision when I'm able to put another rig together.

Thanks a lot to all involved.

You are insane :eek:, but your dedication to get this right is priceless:up:

I do not think I need to go that far.

I got my x3440@2.8ghz@1.2v now till I get a new cooler in this week.
ram is the same, only diff is this rig only has 1 gpu

Got 1 920@2.8ghz@1.2v. same ram, but 2 gpus

I am currently only running HFCC on both as I think those are what we agreed upon; if not, thats what I am sticking to for my comparison. I basically want to monitor for a few days to a week to compare. Hopefully I get usable results

The only thing I can see about this way is that each rig has to make sure its wu's are all turned in before last update. I have noticed in the past that sometimes the machine does not like to update as often as it should. I will try to keep an eye on this to compare with.

I will let you know my results

Good thead guys!! Keep up the good work:yepp::up:....I cant wait til I can get into the newer stuff again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INFRNL

You are insane :eek:, but your dedication to get this right is priceless:up:

I do not think I need to go that far.

I got my x3440@2.8ghz@1.2v now till I get a new cooler in this week.
ram is the same, only diff is this rig only has 1 gpu

Got 1 920@2.8ghz@1.2v. same ram, but 2 gpus

I am currently only running HFCC on both as I think those are what we agreed upon; if not, thats what I am sticking to for my comparison. I basically want to monitor for a few days to a week to compare. Hopefully I get usable results

The only thing I can see about this way is that each rig has to make sure its wu's are all turned in before last update. I have noticed in the past that sometimes the machine does not like to update as often as it should. I will try to keep an eye on this to compare with.

I will let you know my results

---

Yup, HFCC. The test WU of choice.. :up:

Good to see you got some clock on the new rig. I'll be curious to see how well it clocks later. So, for now at least, you have the 2.8 data point, I have 3.7, and Emu has 4 gig.

BTW to all, if I was to re-connect the network cable with "suspend network activity" selected, would that also block uploading WUs? If not, this test has to be run with the cable unplugged. Otherwise you'll be letting the bogus WUs from the "client/target" machine hit the work servers. That couldn't be good.

I'm going to stay unplugged for the duration just to make sure.

Bob

If you say suspend network activity you'll be good. It does not connect at all if that is selected.

Good work, keep it up!

Simply awesome! :up: Good luck Bob, here's hoping everything goes smoothly.

Looks like we will be testing something else now! :D

I'll probably get onto this tomorrow the way things are travelling at the moment.

OK, drum roll please....I have results....Interesting results, I might add...:yepp:

REMEMBER, an IDENTICAL COPY of 24 WUs were run on each machine.


First the mandatory screenies.

The 920 IDLE CPUz shot...

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...hotcropped.jpg

The 920 BOINC Data Screen.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...atacropped.jpg

Add up the hours/minutes/seconds as individual columns and you get total 85:658:702.

This is easier math than converting all to decimal hours at this point. I could not get a good cut and paste out of boincmgr to go right to excel. Had to do it manually. Arrrgh. SOMEONE IS MOST WELCOME TO CHECK MY MATH. I did this bleary eyed at 5am here...:D




The 860 IDLE CPUz shot. The only difference I see here is on the memory page for NB freq, whatever that is. The 860 is dual channel, the 920 is triple of course....

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...hotcropped.jpg

The 860 BOINC data screen.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...atacropped.jpg

Add up the hours/minutes/seconds as individual columns and you get total 85:642:697 for the 860.

Now, it gets interesting. 24 WUs were run.

For the 920, converting to decimal hours we get 96.161666 hours. Divide that by 24 and you get 4.006736 Hours/WU.

For the 860, converting to decimal hours we get 95.8936111 hours. Divide by 24 and you get 3.9955671 Hours/WU.

Note the 860 is doing WUs FASTER than the 920.....

How much? Well, .0111688 hours, or .6701322 minutes, or 40.207 seconds.

So the 860 is about 40 seconds average FASTER per WU than the 920.

I think I'd still call them even, but in no way is the 860 "crippled" compared to the 920.

So at least at the 3.7 gig data point, the 860's better power efficiency and similar score to the 920 makes it a good choice for pure crunching. If you need to go Gulftown later, then 920 might be your choice.

I'm also finding the X3440 choice INFRNL made to be interesting for farm rigs....Might have to get a dozen of those. ;)

Bob

FURTHER INFO: Remember I copied the 920's original BOINC app data folder in order to restore it at the end of the test? Well, I'm happy to report that it worked. The 920 rig is crunching away again on it's own folder. It pizzed off the server due to dumping the WUs, but I have 8 units crunching and I'm sure I'll get more when the WUs complete and show the server that it's OK.

Nice work, I agree completely with your conclusion.

Only difference between te 920 and the 860 is the lower NB speed and command rate? Even if small, the effect of that might explain the difference and / or a bit more.

Awesome work Bob :up:

Although I'm afraid you'll have to run that again on the 920 - "NB Speed" is uncore, which is important and makes a difference for crunching, as it is the area where the L3 cache resides.

It should by all means be identical for a real comparison. To fix this, just increase the Uncore mult from 16x to 18x on the 920. The 860 doesn't have adjustable uncore multipliers.

And while you're at it, put command rate at 2 as well. :)

I'll think about it. I have a day job you know.....:yepp:

Yes, it's not that important really. I suspect the 920 would be a little faster with higher uncore, but when it comes down to it, crunching performance is virtually identical between those 2 - which is what I always said :wasntme:
Still, awesome to know for sure.

Gave it some thought. I'd only need to re-run the 920.

Tried the uncore bios multi at 18, no boot. I think it was too high. Had to clear CMOS to recover.

I suspect this board multiplies by two, so I should need x9 in my bios. I'll see.

I'll update as soon as I get everything back where it was.

Bob

Huh? Naw, 18x uncore should work with 8x dram... there is no 9x dram divider, next would be 10x which wouldn't work with 18x uncore (for Bloomfields, uncore must be 2x dram speed or higher).

Try higher VTT and Vdimm for higher uncore.

Edit: Ah, you mean the board only shows 9x for a real uncore mult of 18x? Weird.. but then again, it's MSI, so anything is possible :D
See if it has any "preview" option for uncore speed, 16x is 2960, 18x should be 3330 at your BCLK of 185