So... if credits are not important for some of you... what alternative you have to measure the computational power working for R@H (or any other BOINC proyect)?.

Competition is not just a human thing, we do it to compare ourselves to others. We try to find out where we are in the whole scheme of things that way. You are starting to get into the mental health aspects of humans here and this could lead to a whole huge discussion about the human brain and its inner workings. Suffice it to say that my computers are better than your computers, so by extension I am better than you, is the thinking. Is this right, not in my opinion, but it is just my opinion!

I'm sorry, I didn't read through this thread earlier, I wish I had...


I apologize again, and we will collectively put together a full report by mid next week.

I'm sorry, I didn't read through this thread earlier, I wish I had.

I am fully aware that we have fallen behind on providing feedback on the project. As I've said elsewhere, it is because we are putting all of our efforts into the research, but this is not an excuse. Since you are making the work possible, we owe it to you to give clear explanations of what we are working on.

I apologize again, and we will collectively put together a full report by mid next week.

Thank you for the suggestions! We will work on updating and reporting this week. Everybody here is so focused on research we do need reminders occasionally when we have fallen behind on reporting back to you all the exciting things that are happening!

there was another thread sometime back that said gpu's are good for speed but not for accuracy. RAH needs accuracy as well as speed. that comes from this post. also penguin has a point about the different architectures and styles of gpu's. i would "guess" that also the fact that the team keeps updating the program and that is a challenge enough for cpu's. taking on the challenge of writing for gpu's would overwhelm them.
this is a university run program and they get private funding, more for research results rather than programing. at least that how i read all the different stories on here.

@Paul: Wonderful! Trying to build my i7 system as quickly as possible, just need a mobo. Question for you: If I get a mobo with 3 or 4 gpu slots, with Boinc can I then run 8 threads of "regular" Boinc wu's, and 3 or 4 gpu wu's, or am I limited to 8 "regular" and only 1 gpu?

@ejuel: Don't believe anytime in the near future. I've been a big proponent of porting Rosie to the "standardized" PS3, and given the code size and frequent changes, appears not very feasible. I "assume" that since gpu's are "non-standardized" (different mfgr's, gpu architecture, core speeds, amount of ram, etc), the same issues would also exist.

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php
"Note: if your computer is equipped with an NVIDIA Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), you may be able to use it to compute faster."

ejuel, DK is talking about the Rosetta specific preference for how long each task runs on your client machine. If you express no preference, the default is for tasks to run for 3 hours presently. But the drop down list lets you chose from a preference of 1 hour, through 24 hours for each task.

We are planning to increase the default run time from 3 hours to 6 hours and the minimum from 1 to 3 hours to reduce the load on our servers.

They use the data dumps from the projects to determine the numbers ... there is of course some fluctuation as some of us are intermittent in doing work ..., but the order of magnitude is reasonable ...

For me, the thing to take away from that number is that 75% of the people that tried Rosetta, left ...

to me the most depressing aspect of this is that *I* think that the project could improve on those numbers ... if only ... and there is a song about that I thing ...