He said it was a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00

You have a pretty fast machine. It will provide an impressive RAC here. 2-3 times what your P4 did.

Edit: *And* use a lot less power ($) doing it.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

I don't see the point of an undertaking like that for a non-profit, volunteer project. The reasons are (in no particular order):

1)How much cpu performance can you improve by doing special clients? 10%? Whooped-dee-doo. New people sign up to BOINC every day...so what will take someone 6 months to develop a specialized app to squeeze 10% could be accomplished easily in a few weeks by the addition of more users and hence doing more work and hence getting more work done in a particular timeframe.
2)And who's going to spend all their time developing/updating/debugging each and every client? And they are going to donate all that time for no charge?
3)Wouldn't it be better to use those hundreds (if not thousands) of man hours doing something else? Maybe spreading the word of the project or building a better website? Or working on a better universal client?

-Eric

p.s. Speaking of adding users, I'd like to know why this project doesn't have more users. This project has less than 160,000 users and just barely 400,000 machines. I know everyone has their own choice but out of the 300 million people in the U.S. alone this is a pitiful amount to show up at Rosetta. Probably time for a new thread unless one has already started it.

Actually, I think that depends on the project administrator. What are his/their priorities? If crunching a lot of work units is highest priority, then having developers improve and optimize the client application would be worth it. Folding@home has managed to make a GPU client and SMP (4 thread) client and are (sadly) leading the distributed computing scene in their applications. My point is, what we see in operations is a consequence of the decisions by administration.

First, let me say that the developers are actively working on the R@H application. We have seen several Beta versions out in the last few months. I'm sure progress is being made to enhance the application. Unfortunately, science comes before CPU performance. Notably lacking from their priorities is bug fixing on unix/linux platforms. I guess that's because of linux being a minority of systems running R@H, performing only 11% as much work WinXP machines do.

If I were in charge:
Once the application performs the science desired (hopefully by version 5.90), then I would have the developers research MMX and SSE optimizations. The application would then do a check_instruction on the CPU it runs on to enable/disable extensions as necessary. I would also wager money that proper compiler-level CPU optimizations give more than a 10% advantage in speed.

(People such as Crunch3r, Simon Zadra, and others have worked on the SETI code and people have sworn by 25% performance increases. That's not a fair comparison I realize, but it's an example of how community experts *could* help this project if the code were open-source or R@H had more resources for application optimizations.)

Once happy with the application version 5.91, I would have my staff promote the application, work on the website/form upgrade, etc. to get more users to join.

Then perhaps develop OpenGL graphics for the current unix platforms. If BOINC v6.0 comes out with new graphics, then I'd stop that development and focus on using the new graphics engine to be announced in BOINC v6.0.

For the record, the number of R@H users has doubled in the last year. I'd say R@H is growing.
http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/bp.php?project=6

The laptop Core2's are used to keep the heat down as it's a small enclosed area in the mac-mini. They have a restricted airflow so cannot cool as well, so like in a laptop to keep it cool and quiet you need to have a cooler CPU. The mini's also not designed to be a power house computer. But there's not much difference between them in the Core2 range.
They also can come in different sockets, not knowing much about the mac-mini I cannot really comment

but you czan read about the Core2 find your CPU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors

and get lost in the links and information, so see you in a week :)


either way, it's faster than my computers ;)


---------

Optimised BOINC program (Boinc core client)....
- People use them to adjust the credits for when there is a legitimate optimsed project program (boinc project client), seti@home users did this before it moved to it current credit granting system.
The optimised project client would run twice as fast, so people thought they should be benchmarking at twice as fast (to get the same credit per task).
It was a ligitimate reason, unfortunatly this has the side effect of overclaiming on virtually every other project at the time (bar a few).
Now there are a handful of small project that still let you claim what you want, within reason. Xtremlabs being one I remember, though it's capped maximum.

In the end BOINC clients or the interface (GUI) can be slightly snappier and it now has little effect on most projects.

---

Team mauisun.org

I didn't know the Mac Mini was using a laptop chip. It makes sense but kinda disappointing. I can't keep up with all the Intel logos/brand names these days...all purposely confusing so you think you are getting a great chip when even just 10 months ago Celerons were still put in desktops. Yuck.

Don't let the "laptop" designation fool you. It really means low power, not low performance. The chip used in the iMac is also the laptop version, and I got a RAC of well over 1k with it on SETI.

FWIW, the mac mini came with a PPC (G4), a Core Solo, a Core Duo, or a Core 2 Duo. Which chip does yours have?

The brand new Mini...Core Duo 2.00GHz

The chip used in the iMac is also the laptop version, and I got a RAC of well over 1k with it on SETI.

Let me correct myself. I hit a RAC of 2505 with my iMac (Core 2 Duo T7600, 2.33ghz) on SETI. Of course, this was with an optimized science application, which took advantage of SSE/2/3 functionality. At most, the optimized application doubled the performance. So I would expect this iMac to make at least 1250 RAC here. Probably closer to 1500.

So, with a T7200/2ghz, I estimate it should produce a RAC of 1000-1200.

The sad reality is the highest computer I could find here has a RAC of 626, and it's a windows machine:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=514574

The highest Mac has a RAC of 502:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=556456

We have no way of knowing if they are dedicated crunchers, so maybe their RAC could go higher.

But there are couple of issues here: 1) Rosetta awards lower credits. 2) Macs with identical HW do worse than linux/windows machines here, which is a problem. At the very least, they should be equivalent. But it looks like the application for Macs is slower. If anything, intel Macs should be *faster* than windows or linux boxes. Since intel Macs started with the Core processor, there is no need for legacy support of older processors. So SSE functionality can (should) be used without needing to create/support multiple versions.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

I didn't know the Mac Mini was using a laptop chip. It makes sense but kinda disappointing. I can't keep up with all the Intel logos/brand names these days...all purposely confusing so you think you are getting a great chip when even just 10 months ago Celerons were still put in desktops. Yuck.

Don't let the "laptop" designation fool you. It really means low power, not low performance. The chip used in the iMac is also the laptop version, and I got a RAC of well over 1k with it on SETI.

FWIW, the mac mini came with a PPC (G4), a Core Solo, a Core Duo, or a Core 2 Duo. Which chip does yours have?

The brand new Mini...Core Duo 2.00GHz

I mean Core Duo2 at 2.00GHz

He said it was a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00

You have a pretty fast machine. It will provide an impressive RAC here. 2-3 times what your P4 did.

Edit: *And* use a lot less power ($) doing it.

Yes, this seems to be quite the fast machine...I got it entirely maxed out on the config...I grew up on a //e, went to DOS/Windows in '92 (never liked the Mac till around 2003), and now I need a nice machine to do video editing (I can't believe we tried 3 software suites on the PC and they all failed to do simple edits with 7 hours of video).

The Mac is just ultra sweet for the video stuff. I have a feeling we will go all Mac and use the pc for my diehard sound stuff that I do.

Now if only Apple would bring back a non-mini desktop...Something I can spend $1500 on and NOT be forced to buy a monitor. :)

I'm getting OT but the Mini is coooooool! And yes, it's speed is blazing compared to my dusty Dell.

-Eric

The chip used in the iMac is also the laptop version, and I got a RAC of well over 1k with it on SETI.

Let me correct myself. I hit a RAC of 2505 with my iMac (Core 2 Duo T7600, 2.33ghz) on SETI. Of course, this was with an optimized science application, which took advantage of SSE/2/3 functionality. At most, the optimized application doubled the performance. So I would expect this iMac to make at least 1250 RAC here. Probably closer to 1500.

So, with a T7200/2ghz, I estimate it should produce a RAC of 1000-1200.

The sad reality is the highest computer I could find here has a RAC of 626, and it's a windows machine:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=514574

The highest Mac has a RAC of 502:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=556456

We have no way of knowing if they are dedicated crunchers, so maybe their RAC could go higher.

But there are couple of issues here: 1) Rosetta awards lower credits. 2) Macs with identical HW do worse than linux/windows machines here, which is a problem. At the very least, they should be equivalent. But it looks like the application for Macs is slower. If anything, intel Macs should be *faster* than windows or linux boxes. Since intel Macs started with the Core processor, there is no need for legacy support of older processors. So SSE functionality can (should) be used without needing to create/support multiple versions.

I have a pc running win xp with a intel core duo e6600 which has 4mb cache per core and 4 gig ram dedicated to RAH and I only get 800 rac's.

---

Jmarks

I have a pc running win xp with a intel core duo e6600 which has 4mb cache per core and 4 gig ram dedicated to RAH and I only get 800 rac's.

Sounds a bit low. The highest RAC I could find for a win/E6600 (2.4ghz) machine is 948. There are several in the low 900s, although, it's conceivable that they could all be OC:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=119208


For comparison against another project, the highest RAC for the same OS/HW box on Einstein is 1327. Again, no way of telling if it is OC:

http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=967710

There are no optimized apps currently available for Einstein.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

I have a pc running win xp with a intel core duo e6600 which has 4mb cache per core and 4 gig ram dedicated to RAH and I only get 800 rac's.

Sounds a bit low. The highest RAC I could find for a win/E6600 (2.4ghz) machine is 948. There are several in the low 900s, although, it's conceivable that they could all be OC:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=119208


For comparison against another project, the highest RAC for the same OS/HW box on Einstein is 1327. Again, no way of telling if it is OC:

http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=967710

There are no optimized apps currently available for Einstein.

I just started in July so maybe my RAC computation is not full yet.

---

Jmarks

I have a pc running win xp with a intel core duo e6600 which has 4mb cache per core and 4 gig ram dedicated to RAH and I only get 800 rac's.

Sounds a bit low. The highest RAC I could find for a win/E6600 (2.4ghz) machine is 948. There are several in the low 900s, although, it's conceivable that they could all be OC:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=119208


For comparison against another project, the highest RAC for the same OS/HW box on Einstein is 1327. Again, no way of telling if it is OC:

http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=967710

There are no optimized apps currently available for Einstein.

I just started in July so maybe my RAC computation is not full yet.

I have a Q6600 and I have never exceeded 800 RAC on the system. Granted, that machine also runs the Tivo Server and is used by someone about 8 - 10 hours a day.

I have a new cooler that will be delivered tomorrow and then I will overclock and see if I can hit the 1,000 RAC mark.

I am planning a project to build a water cooled system so I can really overclock it. That system will be dedicated to BOINC so it will easily hit 1,000 RAC.

---

Thx!

Paul

my E6420 gets in the region of 1100 at 3.2GHz (it was powered off for a while recently so it's down a bit at the moment). Obviously if you push further you'll get a higher RAC, but this has to be balanced with the power consumption/heat dissipation - power consumption rises much faster than clock speed for a given set-up, so adding more cores is a more efficient way to go.

I have a Q6600 and I have never exceeded 800 RAC on the system. Granted, that machine also runs the Tivo Server and is used by someone about 8 - 10 hours a day.

I have a new cooler that will be delivered tomorrow and then I will overclock and see if I can hit the 1,000 RAC mark.

I am planning a project to build a water cooled system so I can really overclock it. That system will be dedicated to BOINC so it will easily hit 1,000 RAC.

This is great
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2176940,00.asp
http://www.coolitsystems.com/
CoolIt Eliminator

---

Jmarks

I have a Q6600 and I have never exceeded 800 RAC on the system. Granted, that machine also runs the Tivo Server and is used by someone about 8 - 10 hours a day.

I have a new cooler that will be delivered tomorrow and then I will overclock and see if I can hit the 1,000 RAC mark.

I am planning a project to build a water cooled system so I can really overclock it. That system will be dedicated to BOINC so it will easily hit 1,000 RAC.

Here is an 8-way (2x Xeon E5345 @ 2.33ghz), with a RAC of 2377:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=501863

Xeons are not OC-able (at least not via BIOS), so this machine is probably not OC.

So a Q6600 should be able to do a bit more than half, or ~1300. And as much as ~1700 OC.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Just take your average granted credit per task over a few days, then make it into a 24hr number

i.e
For Jmarks

Task length = 12hrs (since they are retunring in ~43200 seconds)
Granted credit = ~200 (visual check through a few pages, ignored the 20creds ones)
Number of CPUs = 2

So for 24hrs you get ( 24{day}/12{task_length} ) * 200{credits} * 2{cpu}
which I can do in my head ;-) and get 800 credits which would be a good estimate for the max RAC you would get.

---

Team mauisun.org

Here's the stats from my Q6600 system. I broke the 1000 credit barrier on stock speeds, and I use the system for at least 5 hours each day (not necessarily at full potential mind you). I only built that system about a month ago, so there's no way my RAC has leveled off yet.

Before the system outage, it had pushed upwards of 1200. During that time, I overclocked it to 3.0GHz (a 25% overclock). We'll see where it level's off at, but it's currently within the top 40 overall computers on R@H. I'm not sure why, but my Q6600 seems to be doing better than other comparable systems.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=586752

The chip used in the iMac is also the laptop version, and I got a RAC of well over 1k with it on SETI.

Let me correct myself. I hit a RAC of 2505 with my iMac (Core 2 Duo T7600, 2.33ghz) on SETI. Of course, this was with an optimized science application, which took advantage of SSE/2/3 functionality. At most, the optimized application doubled the performance. So I would expect this iMac to make at least 1250 RAC here. Probably closer to 1500.

So, with a T7200/2ghz, I estimate it should produce a RAC of 1000-1200.

The sad reality is the highest computer I could find here has a RAC of 626, and it's a windows machine:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=514574

The highest Mac has a RAC of 502:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=556456

We have no way of knowing if they are dedicated crunchers, so maybe their RAC could go higher.

But there are couple of issues here: 1) Rosetta awards lower credits. 2) Macs with identical HW do worse than linux/windows machines here, which is a problem. At the very least, they should be equivalent. But it looks like the application for Macs is slower. If anything, intel Macs should be *faster* than windows or linux boxes. Since intel Macs started with the Core processor, there is no need for legacy support of older processors. So SSE functionality can (should) be used without needing to create/support multiple versions.

Rosetta@home member since 18 Oct 2005
Country United States
Total credit 203,624.28
Recent average credit 793.75

Shared with 4-6 other projects.

---

e6600 quad @ 2.5ghz
2418 floating point
5227 integer

e6750 dual @ 3.71ghz
3598 floating point
7918 integer

I think zombie67 was referring to any SINGLE computer with RAC over 626:

Beezlebub's highest computer RAC is 262:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=563070

I know I am getting off track here...but does the Mac OS allow as many cores/cpus that you can throw at it?...or is Mac like Microsoft in that XP Home only supports 1 cpu, XP Pro only supports 2 physical chips? I have no idea what all the flavors of Visa "supports" and how much I will have to pay through the nose.

The reason I am asking is that as I embark on my road to upgrade my multiple home machines in the future, I may decide to look at Macs more because of my use, and their (hopefully) inherrent ability to use as many cpus/cores as Apple throws at them. Currently their Pro line supports 8 cores...I would assume by mid 2008 it will be up to 12 or 16.

Thanks in advance to all you Mac loyalists (I grew up on the //e but sadly moved to Windows in early 90s).

-Eric

I know I am getting off track here...but does the Mac OS allow as many cores/cpus that you can throw at it?...or is Mac like Microsoft in that XP Home only supports 1 cpu, XP Pro only supports 2 physical chips? I have no idea what all the flavors of Visa "supports" and how much I will have to pay through the nose.

The reason I am asking is that as I embark on my road to upgrade my multiple home machines in the future, I may decide to look at Macs more because of my use, and their (hopefully) inherrent ability to use as many cpus/cores as Apple throws at them. Currently their Pro line supports 8 cores...I would assume by mid 2008 it will be up to 12 or 16.

Thanks in advance to all you Mac loyalists (I grew up on the //e but sadly moved to Windows in early 90s).

-Eric

Mac os x support 2 quad cores.

---

Jmarks