I am going to dip my oar in here for a moment ...

I have a total of 6 computers and I do just about all of the projects and for the most part the computers don't do much other than BOINC.

Looking at my averages and not getting hung up on exact numbers, My dual G5 2.0 GHz does set WU in about 10,000 seconds, and my P4 3.2 GHz HT (1 M Cache) is roughly the same ...

The pleasure in working with the computer and frustration with the silly thing is substantially lower with the Apple G5.

Just another thought.

---

RAC TC CPU
458.72 14,339.73 AMD Athlon(tm) MP 2800+ Pentium (Dual)
243.39 17,818.53 Power Macintosh PowerMac3,3 Dual 1.3 Ghz G4's

Both machines have dual processors and run nearly 100% of the time. The AMD machine is newer to BOINC, and is beginning to overtake the dual G4.

AMD:
Measured floating point speed 1950.44 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 3324.7 million ops/sec

G4:
Measured floating point speed 900.23 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 2097.37 million ops/sec

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=1790&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=524&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://www.flagofearth.com/Decal2.jpg" HEIGHT="70">

<BR><B><I>Regards, UA

Win 2000 Advanced Server can do 16 and 32 CPU´s ;-)

Hm, why ur doing Dualcpu´s, when u can have same Boinc power with one? ;-)

AMD Athlon XP-M Pentium
Number of CPUs 1
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.01.2600.00)
Memory 1023.48 MB
Cache 976.56 KB
Swap space 2461 MB
Total disk space 76.33 GB
Free Disk Space 35.81 GB
Measured floating point speed 2591.9 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 6256.25 million ops/sec

Crunch a WU in 1.59 hour

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=a391dacd6238aec627931362f1150623">

> I actually beleive that dual xeons are the way to go.

Dual Opterons hammer the Xeons when it comes to FPU performance, even when as much as 1.2GHz slower. The Athlon64/Opteron advantage (amongst others) is their onboard memory controller.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

> > I actually beleive that dual xeons are the way to go.
>
> Dual Opterons hammer the Xeons when it comes to FPU performance, even when as
> much as 1.2GHz slower. The Athlon64/Opteron advantage (amongst others) is
> their onboard memory controller.
>
That is true.

However for pure wu through put you can not beat a dual Xeon (3 gig and above with HT) in the dual cpu stakes.

If you take the quad opterons out of the equation all the top cpus here are dual xeons

Dunc

---

> If you take the quad opterons out of the equation all the top cpus <a> href="http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/top_hosts.php?sort_by=expavg_credit&offset=0">here[/url]
> are dual xeons

Interesting looking at the perforamnce of the CPUs- the Opterons are slightly in front of the Xeons for Floating point, and miles in front for Integer, even though as much as 1.2GHz slower.
I always recall the Opterons being considerably faster in FPU work than the Xeons. I think my brain is melting.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

> > If you take the quad opterons out of the equation all the top cpus <a>
> href="http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/top_hosts.php?sort_by=expavg_credit&offset=0">here[/url]
> > are dual xeons
>
> Interesting looking at the perforamnce of the CPUs- the Opterons are slightly
> in front of the Xeons for Floating point, and miles in front for Integer, even
> though as much as 1.2GHz slower.
> I always recall the Opterons being considerably faster in FPU work than the
> Xeons. I think my brain is melting.

AMD Athlon+ CPUS have capability of 3 integer ops/cycle, Pentium 4+ have maximum 2 per cycle.

Pentium 4+ can, in theory, do 1 FP op per cycle but usually have to use Hyperthread to approach it, Athlon+ can reliably do 2 per cycle depending on the mix of FP instructions.