1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
canonical result
(Message 658)
Posted 27 Sep 2005 by ![]() Post: In case anyone wants a reference point, my dual-core 3800 (which is #2) is running at 2.7GHz so thats why I can pull 700+. A single core 3000+ would have to literally be running 5GHz to have a RAC of 670. SS of my machine: http://www.mitro.net/X227P95.gif |
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
A few things about RAC
(Message 650)
Posted 27 Sep 2005 by ![]() Post: Well you have one thing right... the RAC here is useless... it should be a representation of what a user is doing "recently" I think I'll see how long it takes mine to go back to zero. |
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
A few things about RAC
(Message 648)
Posted 27 Sep 2005 by ![]() Post: My quick reply (correct or not) would be that the overall account's RAC is averaged over a shorter period of time than an individual computer's. If your computer is averaged over a month, and your account over a week, the former will raise and lower more slowly. That sounds about like it to me, although it still makes no sense why the two would have a different time period. :) OH.... and the #1 & #3 Top computers (based on RAC) are still bogus. And #2 is the real deal. :p |
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
A few things about RAC
(Message 644)
Posted 27 Sep 2005 by ![]() Post: Well that formula is good to see. But that still doesn't explain how an account's RAC can be lower than 1 computer on that account. |
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
A few things about RAC
(Message 561)
Posted 27 Sep 2005 by ![]() Post:
Any other BOINC project I've paticipated in was simply the RAC of each computer added together... if I have 3 computers and they all has a RAC of 300 then my RAC is 900. I'm utterly confused. |
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
A few things about RAC
(Message 552)
Posted 26 Sep 2005 by ![]() Post: First, obviously I "have a dog in this fight" but this isn't possible :) : ![]() Secondly, how is the RAC figured, since I have on computer that has a RAC by itself of 700, yet I'm only at 300. Thanks in advance. |
©2025 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org