Thank you!!!
It seems like awful specific info, for a guy that is just making the entire story up, doesn't it?
32 instances x 7 Fermi = 224 GPU Folding instances, and probably about 1 or 2 CPU folding instances, for a total of about 226.
226 and 248 are pretty darn close.
22 might have just went to never-never land, while he was getting set up.
Looking here:
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/...sername=FahMan
Active clients (within 7 days) =
228
That would be 7 Fermi * 32 instances + 4 CPU clients running... (Looks correct to me.)
More thoughts: Each Fermi needed to have 32 folding instances loaded up on each GPU, to ensure it was working at 100% of it's capacity.
Each of the 32 folding instances get 16 Fermi shaders to calculate on, and must produce about 1,800 PPD. (1800 X 32 = Fermi's 57,600 PPD)
On g92, (1) GTX 275 produces 9K a day...
9K PPD / 240 Shaders = 37.5 Points per Shader, per Day.
37.5 PPS X 16 g92 Shaders = is only 600 PPD.
If 1 Fermi shader is
3 X as fast as a g92 shader when folding...
16 Fermi shaders would produce 1,800 PPD.
32 Folding instances, running 1 per cluster on (1)Fermi = 57,600 PPD
This all comes down to if you think Fermi's new shaders, with their memory cashes and better calculation speed, can be 3 X as fast as a g92 shader at folding.
If you believe they can be, then 32 folding instances running on (1) Fermi, with each instance being processed on 16 (New improved) shaders = 57,600 PPD.
I see no reason why Fermi couldn't have a 3 X jump in shader speed over g92 when folding.
FahMan was telling the truth, and has the PPD to back it up!
Bookmarks