My iBook G4 / 933 needs 9.53 secs per timestep. This is fairly slow compared to the average speed reported here by pc owners. Maybe there is somebody with a G5 out there, telling us what he/she gets out of the client?! Are there any other mac users out there at all? I am feeling so lonely... :-))

Thanks to the climateprediction.net team for bringing cpdn to my favourite platform. ;-)

> My iBook G4 / 933 needs 9.53 secs per timestep. This is fairly slow compared
> to the average speed reported here by pc owners. Maybe there is somebody with
> a G5 out there, telling us what he/she gets out of the client?! Are there any
> other mac users out there at all? I am feeling so lonely... :-))
>
> Thanks to the climateprediction.net team for bringing cpdn to my favourite
> platform. ;-)

Unfortunately that's normal speed for G4's, the Fortran compilers just aren't as spiffy as what Intel does for Win & Linux boxes. We had a "parallelized" CPDN that took advantage of the Mac's altivec processing but unfortunately the computations weren't correct (there's a million lines of code in the model so it's tough to change/optimize code).

I've seen G5 stats from the alpha test and a G5 is getting around P4/2.8GHz levels (i.e. 2.5-2.8 seconds per timestep). Our only Mac here (our development & test box -- takes about two hours just to compile the climate model!) gets 10.5 seconds per timestep (it's a G4/800MHz iBook).

> Unfortunately that's normal speed for G4's, the Fortran compilers just aren't
> as spiffy as what Intel does for Win & Linux boxes. We had a

And I thought FORTRAN was a dead language... ;)

> And I thought FORTRAN was a dead language... ;)

I thought so too until I joined this project, but there's billions of lines of code out there still happily running, especially in the science field I guess. It would take us 20 years to convert it to C! :-)

I can't get the visualizations to work, but my trickles page shows three trickle results. Two 1.76, and a 1.77.

AMD FX-53, Win XP Pro SP1.

HT P4s running SuSE Linux 9.0
Abox 2.8 GHz, two models @ 3.8 sec/TS each
Bbox 3.0 GHz, two models @ 3.7 & 3.8 sec/TS

AVG. throughput ~1.9 sec/TS for both boxes (if that is the correct way to evaluate HT performance).

Values were calculated from a full Trickle per run (11+ hours & 10802 TS each). (My 'AVG=' numbers are invalid because the four runs were carried forward from Alpha and the Alpha CPU time was lost in the process.)

The odd thing is that the 3.0 box has an 8MB Cache IDE HD (theoretically a bit faster than the older flavor); the 2.8 has the older 4.0 Meg cache IDE HD.
The 3.0 box has 2.0 latency memory, the 2.8 box has 'off the shelf' (presumably 2.5). Both machines have 1.0 gig, dual channel.
(The faster box does browsing and email -- but 'gaming' for me is an occasional hand of Patience. Shouldn't zap all that many cycles...? [Either the 3.0 is a wee bit of a dog, or I have an energetic 2.8.])
________________________________________________
We have met the enemy and he is us -- Pogo

Christian>My iBook G4 / 933...
Ha! Ha! I beat you! I have one PC doing 13.4s/TS. But then its a Celeron 1100...

Cheers,

PeterV.

P4 2,8 Ghz: 3,6s/Ts running 2 Boinc modells
Centrino 1,4Ghz : 2,66 s/TS running 1 Boinc model

I have made a prelimary CPU-time/comparison page (based on 1000 trickles) here:

<A HREF="http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/cpu.html">CPU Timings So Far</A>

I think I was a bit off in my original "spam beta invitation" email, a P4 2.6GHz looks like it would complete in just under 3 weeks, not 4 weeks (running "24/7")

&gt; I have made a prelimary CPU-time/comparison page (based on 1000 trickles)
&gt; here:
&gt;
&gt; <A HREF="http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/cpu.html">CPU Timings So
&gt; Far</A>
&gt;
&gt; I think I was a bit off in my original "spam beta invitation" email, a P4
&gt; 2.6GHz looks like it would complete in just under 3 weeks, not 4 weeks
&gt; (running "24/7")
&gt;
&gt;

AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ Pentium 1 Microsoft Windows XP 2692.0 5265.0 767.48 976.56 2.042 18.385

I have this kind of CPU and I only have 2.3 s/TS. That's pretty much and I can't understand because I have no other background prozesses. SoCPDN gets as much RAM as it wants and 99% CPU time! What can i Do to raise my performance???

Founder of

<a href="http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/team_display.php?teamid=36"><img src="http://www.ug-abi.de/2008/projekt1.jpg"></a>

Getting 4.1 secs/ts with Athlon XP 2000+ Running Windows XP

&gt;AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ Pentium 1 Microsoft Windows XP 2692.0 &gt;5265.0 767.48 976.56 2.042 18.385
&gt;
&gt;I have this kind of CPU and I only have 2.3 s/TS. That's pretty much and I &gt;can't understand because I have no other background prozesses.

That's exactly my CPU as well and I get 2.42 s/TS with 1GB of RAM. I think memory bandwidth is very important, unfortunately BOINC seems to give everyone the same #/measurement for memory speed, but I know my memory is slow (166?) -- I bought my AMD64 PC off of ebay! :-)

P4 3.06 GHz HT laptop,
512 MB RAM,
Windows XP Pro SP1
running 1 BOINC model + classic CPDN simultaneously =
3.88 s/TS

P4 2.8 GHz HT, using one CPU
Linux 2.4.21smp4G (Suse 9.0)
2.35

Jürgen
http://www.wetterstation-porta.info

AMD T-bred @ 1804MHz, 256kB L2$, (XP2200+ ?)
768MB @ 133MHz SDRAM (KT133A chipset),
Linux 2.4.20
4.87s/TS

By the way. Running the ./viz takes one half CPU-time?! Is it really that heavy application? If so, one would be adviced to check the nice graphics only once and then... :)

Cheers,
Jani

I get 1.86s/TS.

xp2500 mobile @ 2520MHz
10.5x240
Windows xp pro sp1

&gt; I have made a prelimary CPU-time/comparison page (based on 1000 trickles)
&gt; here:
&gt;
&gt; <A HREF="http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/cpu.html">CPU Timings So
&gt; Far</a>
&gt;
&gt; I think I was a bit off in my original "spam beta invitation" email, a P4
&gt; 2.6GHz looks like it would complete in just under 3 weeks, not 4 weeks
&gt; (running "24/7")
&gt;
&gt;
Carl,

Cosmetic fix suggested. In your comparison web page, shouldn't the it be sec/TS instead of TS/sec since the lower numbers are leading the pack? Thanks.

George

AMD Athlon 1700+ 384Mo Win XP
-&gt; 5.23 s/TS

&gt; Cosmetic fix suggested. In your comparison web page, shouldn't the it be
&gt; sec/TS instead of TS/sec since the lower numbers are leading the pack?

whoops, yeah, I just changed that. I also have it generate every hour until I get some more interesting pages up and work on the trickle/BOINC credit logic.

Hey carl it looks nice. You know, the PIV's have much better scores. I think that's strange cause i know that in the benchmarks the PIV score less then the Athlon series! That means that the intel pc's well get less credit for 1 wu!

It would be nice if you could include the computerid to find easily wich pc is yours!