So this is a case where the raw computing speed of the CPU is stellar (hence the high credit claim), but the actual results produced when running Rosetta are less then stellar, because (apparently) the contention for L2-cache is preventing full use of the CPUs. The CPUs find themselves waiting for things to arrive in L2 before they can proceed with execution.

The BOINC benchmarks (which is what the claim is based on) are not memory intensive at all, and so they do not factor in this vital resource on the benchmarks used.

This sort of dichotomy between a measurement and a reality is exactly why so many DIFFERENT benchmarks exist for measuring system capabilities.

I also just wanted to point out that it is extremely difficult to draw concrete inference about one machine by comparing to another. This is because there are always so many different types of work in progress on Rosetta@home. And so even if you found WUs from the same protein, doing the same type of search protocol, you will still find variation from one model to the next. Since the tasks are always unique sets of models, the work the two machines were performing is never truly perfectly identical. One model may have 10% (or more, 100% in some isolated cases) variation in runtime to other models of the same task.

Hi Corhal

We can't see your computer names - you have to be logged in as you for that ;)

I would expect your Opteron to be producing higher granted credits than it is though. I would expect the memory speed to make bigger than average difference on that system, but I'd still expect it to get more credits per core, per hour...