The ***OFFICIAL*** F@H Harassment and discussion thread!!!

[[XC] 4X4N]

Angra, I looked at project 3060 in your case. I can't compare to a Q6600 because I haven't seen the logs for a single 3060 project folding on one yet.

However: your machine returns 1% of project 3060 and an average of about 885 seconds. That's an average of 88500 seconds or 24.58 hours for a complete run of project 3060. Project 3060 is worth 2539 points for a PPD average on project 3060 of 2487 PPD.

at 2.66GHz that's ~935 PPD per GHz . or 233.75 PPD per GHz per core which is better than the 185.68 PPD per GHz per core reported by the few Kensfields results I've seen.

Unfortunately I have nothing better to compare it to as most units that get those WU's are running Linux/Unix/OSX variants with Quads.

Based on what we know about memory bandwidth on servers like those vs tweaked systems like ours and how F@H responds to better memory bandwidth, I'd say you are within 5% of PPD per GHz average of what a Q6600 can do with the same OS. Given margins of error, it's a push (toss up).

Does that help?

Here's the bench for a 3060 wu and a Q6600 at 9x372. I know that's not stock, but it might help with the comparison.