Folding@Home: CF Official Discussion Thread

[Jet]

The CF progress hasn't been updated yet

Now I am at 16:15 per WU with my graphics card at 580/500

Jan, are you not folding anymore? You've dropped to less than 700 points per week...

[jancz3rt]

Originally Posted by Bl00dFox

but isnt it logical to think that if your CPU is in use 24/7 that it will perish faster?

To answer your question, the amount that F@H will reduce your CPU time by is insignificant. A CPU should last about 10 years + and by then it will be more than OBSOLETE. That's the logic.

Originally Posted by Jet

The CF progress hasn't been updated yet

Now I am at 16:15 per WU with my graphics card at 580/500

Jan, are you not folding anymore? You've dropped to less than 700 points per week...

Hehe, I am still folding (OF COURSE ). I just seem to have got a very large WU on my main rig as well as my other rigs. Just wait for an explosion in my score

Current update:

Date of last work unit 2006-12-03 03:17:00
Active CPUs within 50 days 144
Team Id 44358
Grand Score 505330
Work Unit Count 2744
Team Ranking (incl. aggregate) 810 of 46776


JAN

[magicman]

Originally Posted by Jet

The CF progress hasn't been updated yet

My apologies Jadies and Lentilmen, I've been very busy, and haven't found the hour I need to do the weekly update. I have, however, taken a snapshot of the progress as of Saturday, and will use that in order to not skew the graphs. It should be uploaded by midnight GMT+0 tonight.

[jancz3rt]

Not mentioned, surprisingly : we have reached sub 800 rating, and therefore have indvidualized rating systems Yay! Way to go guys!

See 4 yourself: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.c...php?s=&t=44358

JAN

[Emperor_nero]

I will Repeat: What's the main difference between the graphical and the console version? Is the console version any faster?

[Jet]

Originally Posted by Emperor_nero

What's the main difference between the graphical and the console version? Is the console version any faster?

The graphical version has more control and a "better" user interface, but it has more compatibility issues with running it along with other programs, like certain games.

The console version is simple and easy to use. This is what I do: I run the console version, but don't set it up to start automatically and become a background task, but start it so it is in a DOS window everytime the comptuer starts. That way, I get the compatibility, as well as being able to monitor it.

[Emperor_nero]

Originally Posted by Jet

The graphical version has more control and a "better" user interface, but it has more compatibility issues with running it along with other programs, like certain games.

The console version is simple and easy to use. This is what I do: I run the console version, but don't set it up to start automatically and become a background task, but start it so it is in a DOS window everytime the comptuer starts. That way, I get the compatibility, as well as being able to monitor it.

Thanks alot jet!

Is ether one any faster than the other one?

[ceewi1]

Originally Posted by Jet

The graphical version has more control and a "better" user interface, but it has more compatibility issues with running it along with other programs, like certain games.

The console version is simple and easy to use. This is what I do: I run the console version, but don't set it up to start automatically and become a background task, but start it so it is in a DOS window everytime the comptuer starts. That way, I get the compatibility, as well as being able to monitor it.

I set it to start automatically, and use EMIII to monitor it - all the benefits of the console version, plus a nice interface for monitoring.

Is ether one any faster than the other one?

Yes, the console version is slightly faster (but not by much).

[Bobo]

One more WU until triple digits for me! Yay!

[Emperor_nero]

Thanks ceewi1 and Jet!