My system is air cooled only. Three front intake. 1 top 1 back exhaust. and push/pull CPU cooler master fans. I won't use a water cooled system as people told me it is likely to leak. I have pets, I can't have that happen.

GPU has three fans on it. It's the long one.

I have contacted ASUS to tell them we need a firmware update or a new program that allows 100% user fan controller. Not sure how long it will take them to reply or if they will allow it.

I have noticed that Rosetta files run hotter, significantly hotter. I am now running only WCG files at 80-90% capacity and the temps are below 80. They run about 10C cooler. I wonder if Rosetta files are just not optimized correctly for user PCs. I don't know. Might be something to look at.

I still have to leave my AC on, and I don't want to do that, I want, like you said, even in an ambient environment at 35C that my system runs no hotter than 70. Something just isn't right.

In my opinion, the credit system is not broken at all, it is working well as intended. Please read the posts that explain how credits are awarded in Rosetta@home.
* http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=669&postid=10377
* http://https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2194&postid=24612#24612

Basically, from what I understand, what really bothers you right now is WU to WU variability. Note that this will all average out on the long term, even after a few days, but definitely after 2 weeks (RAC).

Thus your aggregate credit count and RAC is still as good as anything for the purpose of keeping up the friendly competition with your peers, getting feedback about your contribution, fine tuning the performance of your hardware, checking whether your boxes are producing as expected for the given kind of hardware, etc.

Hence what you are asking (precise WU flops estimates) would require lots of development and maintenance time to be devoted to something that isn't that important at all and would take away time from research.

[snip]

Yes, smt/hyper threading is off. The point is though, on my Intel laptops, the speed has remained the same between 4.07 to 4.12. On my tr it's dropped over 60% regardless of what I try, I can't put it much simpler than that.

Note that all of your Intel laptops have a much lower number of cores, and will therefore have much less of a problem with too many cores trying to share the limited speed path to main memory. I can't put it much simpler than that, either.

4.07 is the reference yes. 4.12 is 60% slower than that, I don't know what is so difficult to understand, it's has nothing to do with memory or anything else. You dont have a 64/128 chip to only run it on 5 cores to keep the same productivity because of a software change. Is there a mod/developer that can possibly comment on this issue?

Resource contention, nothing less, nothing more. Nothing exotic or unknowable. ZEN architecture is strong on memory bandwidth but bad on memory latency. Even if you have relatively larger cache there will be still lots of memory access that has to be fulfilled from main memory. Because of that too many core doing access will overload memory bus and their performance will drop of sharply. (Especially when latency of memory access is already high)

I suggest you experiment with number of concurrent task for RAH to find equilibrium. Alternately, you could try to see if you can get memory to higher frequency without worsening its timing. Also ensure that there is no swapping. (IIRC each 4.12 task needs about 2GB of RAM which amounts to about 128GB of RAM in use beside all other processes already running)

[snip]

Yes, smt/hyper threading is off. The point is though, on my Intel laptops, the speed has remained the same between 4.07 to 4.12. On my tr it's dropped over 60% regardless of what I try, I can't put it much simpler than that.

Note that all of your Intel laptops have a much lower number of cores, and will therefore have much less of a problem with too many cores trying to share the limited speed path to main memory. I can't put it much simpler than that, either.

4.12 is running very poorly on AMD.

[snip]

On CPUs with very high numbers of cores, the speed of the path from the CPU to the memory is usually inadequate for effective use of all the cores at once, especially for programs with heavy use of the L3 cache in the CPU. The 4.12 program is significantly larger than the 4.07 program, and therefore likely to have heavier L3 use.

You may need to experiment with various numbers of cores in use, and draw a graph of total throughput per day versus number of cores in use, so you can get the maximum total throughput in a day.

Whether the CPU was made by AMD or by Intel is not the major factor in this problem.

Well each core has 4.2mb of L3, more than the Intel chips. I've tried with 8mb of L3 per core, no difference.

The i5 processor has only 3MB in total 1.5 per core. It clearly isn't down to L3 cache levels.

I'm only running it on the 64 cores, so has 2gb per core, although not running the full 64. I've tried on just 32 cores, makes no difference. Like I said, was running at 3 times the speed of the intel laptops which are slower and have considerably less cache on the 4.07 tasks, now regardless it's running marginally slower than them. That is an enormous drop.

ssd drive

There are other posts from people running AMD chips noticing their temps and power usage is reduced, all indicating less work being done, for whatever reason.

My clock speed is also up depending on wu between 10% and 30%, which again suggests that the chip is running faster but doing less per cycle.

I misread your total amount of main memory.

All of the cores must share the same path to main memory. With today's memory speeds, that means that each core in use spends most of its cycles waiting for access to the main memory, rather than doing any useful work, if many cores are in use. This reduces the power used, and therefore the amount of heat generated.

If you are using less than half of the total number of processors on the CPU chip, turning off hyperthreading, or AMD's equivalent, often helps somewhat.

I'm not saying that which company made the CPU has no effect, I just expect it to be much less than many cores using the same path to main memory. Recompiling 4.12 to take advantage of the things the AMD CPU has but Intel CPUs don't would offer some help, but that's not something I can do.

4.12 is running very poorly on AMD.

Average processing rate is reasonable measure to go on. 4.07 my 3990x was regularly hitting over 30 GFLOPS on x86_64. If you look now its been left on 19 but that's an anomaly.

4.12 I can't get it over 11.5 no matter how many cores I run. Yet 2 of the 3 old laptops I have running this with vastly slower chips are hitting over 12 running the same work units.

Something is clearly wrong and I did notice immediately but have had no response to other posts.

On CPUs with very high numbers of cores, the speed of the path from the CPU to the memory is usually inadequate for effective use of all the cores at once, especially for programs with heavy use of the L3 cache in the CPU. The 4.12 program is significantly larger than the 4.07 program, and therefore likely to have heavier L3 use.

You may need to experiment with various numbers of cores in use, and draw a graph of total throughput per day versus number of cores in use, so you can get the maximum total throughput in a day.

Whether the CPU was made by AMD or by Intel is not the major factor in this problem.

One thing to watch for when using CPUs with especially high numbers of cores - the bandwidth from the CPU to the memory may not be adequate to run all of the cores very well. This could leave each core in use waiting for access to memory most of the time,

If so, it can be useful to reduce the number of cores BOINC is allowed to use and see if that speeds up the work enough to more than compensate for fewer cores in use.

I've run a few 4.12 tasks overnight (around 80), first impressions are that it runs each decoy approx 4* as long, my preference is set for an hour, and my threadripper is quite quick, but it's taking between 3-4 hours to run one decoy if it starts with rb, under 4.07 I would hit 1 decoy in under an hour 99% of the time. The design task has run the same speed but only given 2 points credit per decoy.

4.12 is not looking productive from my end as an end user. It would take my slower processors in laptops etc nearly 8 hours or more for 1 decoy going by results by far.

I've just been sent a further 60 tasks with rb prefix so ill see how they run. these are a different batch.

You've just run 80 tasks overnight and received 60 more
You have 2500 tasks available to run on your threadripper which has 64-cores and 132Gb RAM running 1hr tasks

What is it about 4.12 that isn't looking productive from your pov?
Because after several days with very few tasks available at all I'd kill for any of the problems you're currently having
Quite astonishing.