|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
| |
||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| |
||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
| |
Dev Hardware Forums Sponsor:
|
|
|
September 16th, 2006, 10:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Folding at Home GUI vs Console
So I ran across this thread which seems to contradict everything that's said on here in regards to the performance differences between the GUI and console versions of the Folding at Home client.
http://forum.folding-community.org/viewtopic.php?t=16024 Thoughts? Opinions?
|
|
September 17th, 2006, 05:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
There maybe only a small difference in performace but a old P3 would do much better with the console because it would be able to just fold and not have to draw the stupid protien over and over. Another reason, as stated in that thread, alot of ppl use the console is becuase it supports more that one core. Most puters now days are dual cored. Last reason the console rockorzs111 is because you can have an army of diskless folders  Good point to try to make but the GUI is more for show and less getting down to business than the console. IMO when it comes to saving lives I would just like to get down to business. and thanks for the post. I'm sure this thread will bring many POV. 
__________________
Arguing on the internet is kinda like being in the special olympics, even if you win you are still a retard. Last edited by MuTTAR : September 17th, 2006 at 05:46 AM.
|
|
September 18th, 2006, 07:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I would agree 100% with MuTTAR. I have an old PIII as a dedicated folding machine. At first I had it set up as GUI just because its easier, but it was taking about 1.5 days to complete a WU I switched to console and its still taking a long ass time but it is a few hours faster running. In the long run I will complete a lot more WU with this rig using the console
|
|
September 18th, 2006, 07:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I strongly agree with MuTTAR and Justin, console version is way faster.. depends.. in some cases, only slightly, but sometimes it's a drastical change. Why use the GUI one, anyway?
__________________
“Greatness, combined with the hint of a 24-carat lifestyle, is within us striving to make it through, craving for attention, and in the end, recognition, leaving a record worthy of biography on forging success stories.” —ME Check out MadHyeNa's Article Index. I succeed, conquer, and achieve, therefore I am.™
|
|
September 19th, 2006, 11:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Follow up question....
Are you all running the folding client at 100% processor load? If in fact the GUI drawing is done seperately of the folding core, it seems that would cut into processor availablility. If you're not running it at full load (!00% of available processor cycles) then perhaps... Thoughts? Opinions?
|
|
September 20th, 2006, 04:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
100% I run GUI on my laptop and it never has a problem, beside getting hot. You need to remember that FAH isnt using 100% of ypur procession power..say you going photoshop and surfing the net that takes 56% the left over is what is used . There is a benchmarking thread with and without FAH to see what it goes...thats a good read. gl and welcome to the team
FOLD TO CURE
|
|
| Viewing: Dev Hardware Forums > IMPORTANT INFORMATION > Dev Folding > Folding at Home GUI vs Console |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Del.icio.us
Digg
Google
Spurl
Blink
Furl
Simpy
Y! MyWeb
Hybrid Mode
