What flags to use?? - Can we have a sticky?

This forum is for discussions about the Motherboards.org Folding team. What is folding? Venture on in for a look.

Moderator: The Mod Squad

C#Dave
Black Belt
Black Belt
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:49 pm
Location: Phobos

Post by C#Dave »

Southwind25 wrote:Actually I would think that machine would benchmark higher than that. Here's part of a log file from one of my 2400+'s clocked to 2145 MHz:
##############################################################################

Arguments: -local -forceSSE -advmethods -verbosity 9

Warning:
By using the -forceSSE flag, you are overriding program
safeguards that monitor the stability of SSE
instructions on your system. If you did not intend
to do this, please restart the program without
-forceSSE. If work units are not completing fully,
then please discontinue use of the flag.

[13:12:06] - Ask before connecting: No
[13:12:06] - User name: Southwind25 (Team 33258)
[13:12:06] - User ID = 446F321F0F948CE8
[13:12:06] - Machine ID: 1
[13:12:06]
[13:12:06] Loaded queue successfully.
[13:12:06] + Benchmarking ...
[13:12:08] The benchmark result is 7176
[13:12:08]
[13:12:08] + Processing work unit
[13:12:08] Core required: FahCore_78.exe
[13:12:08] Core found.
Oh goody! Do we get to post our benchmarks? :D

I have a 2800...

Never mind... (Just messin' with ya South) :lol:

Dave
You have your family and friends, the rest is just jewelry...
Southwind25
Black Belt 5th Degree
Black Belt 5th Degree
Posts: 7339
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 9:56 am
Location: Kansas

Post by Southwind25 »

C#Dave wrote:
Southwind25 wrote:Actually I would think that machine would benchmark higher than that. Here's part of a log file from one of my 2400+'s clocked to 2145 MHz:
##############################################################################

Arguments: -local -forceSSE -advmethods -verbosity 9

Warning:
By using the -forceSSE flag, you are overriding program
safeguards that monitor the stability of SSE
instructions on your system. If you did not intend
to do this, please restart the program without
-forceSSE. If work units are not completing fully,
then please discontinue use of the flag.

[13:12:06] - Ask before connecting: No
[13:12:06] - User name: Southwind25 (Team 33258)
[13:12:06] - User ID = 446F321F0F948CE8
[13:12:06] - Machine ID: 1
[13:12:06]
[13:12:06] Loaded queue successfully.
[13:12:06] + Benchmarking ...
[13:12:08] The benchmark result is 7176
[13:12:08]
[13:12:08] + Processing work unit
[13:12:08] Core required: FahCore_78.exe
[13:12:08] Core found.
Oh goody! Do we get to post our benchmarks? :D

I have a 2800...

Never mind... (Just messin' with ya South) :lol:

Dave
Sure, why not?
[img]http://www.motherboards.org/sig/sig3/33258/Southwind25/sig.jpg[/img]
Twisty
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
Posts: 1970
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 1:01 am
Location: UK / Singapore

Post by Twisty »

So it appears the benchmarking is not very clever then. Is it used to weight the final score? If so then I will delay the automatic startup of folding for a minute.

My foault for turning this into a whose is bigger than whose comp. If I clock to 2150 and shut down AVG/Sygate etc then I get

Arguments: -advmethods -forceSSE -verbosity 9 -local

Warning:
By using the -forceSSE flag, you are overriding program
safeguards that monitor the stability of SSE
instructions on your system. If you did not intend
to do this, please restart the program without
-forceSSE. If work units are not completing fully,
then please discontinue use of the flag.

[09:09:52] - Ask before connecting: No
[09:09:52] - User name: Webster (Team 33258)
[09:09:52] - User ID = 265527B6B38DDBC
[09:09:52] - Machine ID: 1
[09:09:52]
[09:09:52] Loaded queue successfully.
[09:09:52] Initialization complete
[09:09:52] + Benchmarking ...
[09:09:54] The benchmark result is 7084
[09:09:54]
I have now left the Building :tongue8:
User avatar
evasive
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
Posts: 37617
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by evasive »

[10:53:29] - Ask before connecting: No
[10:53:29] - Use IE connection settings: Yes
[10:53:29] - User name: evasive (Team 33258)
[10:53:29] - User ID = 5D775D3854B5C5C7
[10:53:29] - Machine ID: 1
[10:53:29]
[10:53:29] Loaded queue successfully.
[10:53:29] Initialization complete
[10:53:29] + Benchmarking ...
[10:53:32] The benchmark result is 5048
[10:53:32]
with AVG active I land somewhere in 2000. Thanks for the tip.
We hate rut, but we fear change.
********************************
System error, strike any user to continue...
Southwind25
Black Belt 5th Degree
Black Belt 5th Degree
Posts: 7339
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 9:56 am
Location: Kansas

Post by Southwind25 »

The benchmark doesn't add into the score, but it does give some indication of how fast a machine will fold. I'm running 4 machines and they produce work at relatively the order they benchmark. You asked about your benchmark, I didn't post mine to turn this into a p_ssing contest, if I was I'd posted the log from my fastest machine, just to show you that I thought that was low for the hardware you're running. C#Dave was just ribbing me because we're friends and his clocked up 2.8 P4 benches about 2000 points higher and produces work at about that amount higher than my 2400+'s and 2500+ Bartons do. I'm sorry if it came off that way.
[img]http://www.motherboards.org/sig/sig3/33258/Southwind25/sig.jpg[/img]
User avatar
evasive
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
Posts: 37617
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by evasive »

I think the benchmark also decides what kind of WUs you get, I could do with another 160pointer...
We hate rut, but we fear change.
********************************
System error, strike any user to continue...
Southwind25
Black Belt 5th Degree
Black Belt 5th Degree
Posts: 7339
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 9:56 am
Location: Kansas

Post by Southwind25 »

evasive wrote:I think the benchmark also decides what kind of WUs you get, I could do with another 160pointer...
I think it's either the benchmark or your finish time percentage. I'm running two instances and switch them back and forth because of dial up, and I've noticed if I let one of them set awhile before I finish it, I get smaller WU's.
[img]http://www.motherboards.org/sig/sig3/33258/Southwind25/sig.jpg[/img]
C#Dave
Black Belt
Black Belt
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:49 pm
Location: Phobos

Post by C#Dave »

evasive wrote:I think the benchmark also decides what kind of WUs you get, I could do with another 160pointer...
I have to agree, but the downside is that if you have a P4 or any processor that has SSE2, you are going to get a lot of the 934's and 935's.

I've been living off them for about 9 days now, and they are VERY tender. You don't dare sneeze while these are running. You will lose the WU, and no points will be awarded. I hope we finish them off pretty soon. I could use some 160 pointers too! Unfortunately, 3 of my 4 machines are SSE2. :cry:

Dave
You have your family and friends, the rest is just jewelry...
len444
Black Belt 3rd Degree
Black Belt 3rd Degree
Posts: 3987
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:01 am

Post by len444 »

Stanford uses the performance factor in determining WU's given out. seems that they have some kind of detection for sse2, though i haven't seen a definitive acknowledgement from Stanford so far. perhaps i just missed a thread where it was stated?
inteljunky
Brown Belt
Brown Belt
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:32 am
Location: Somewhere near the internet

Post by inteljunky »

thats funny. my main machine benchmarks the way a P1 should, and i get the 160 pointers and stuff, and seem to get about the same speed you guys get.
Folding folding folding keep them procs a folding.......

P4 2.53 ghz @ 2.86
Post Reply