Changes to bigadv coming Jan 16

somethingsketchy

Golden Member
Nov 25, 2008
1,019
0
71
While I don't participate in the F@H, those minimum requirements are ridiculous. That would just about force everyone with a rig(s) older than six months to upgrade. Then again it is experimental, so I can see the why for the upgrade.
 

theAnimal

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2003
3,828
23
76
While I don't participate in the F@H, those minimum requirements are ridiculous.
There are no changes for the requirements for other F@H WU and those still need to be done. The SMP WUs are being ignored in favor of the bigadv for higher PPD, but the bigadv were never intended to be run on regular consumer level hardware.

That would just about force everyone with a rig(s) older than six months to upgrade.
Actually anyone with only a single CPU (except possibly a 16 core BD, I don't know what frame times they get) would be forced to upgrade.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,587
10,225
126
Lame. You would think that they would want the participation of people with Nehalem i7s and SB 2600Ks, but not, they want to shun them, and lump them back in with the SMP guys.
 

Pokey

Platinum Member
Oct 20, 1999
2,781
480
126
Technically, from what I’ve read, we (I7, SB2600K) aren’t supposed to be able to run the –bigadv work units in the first place. It is only because the client can’t tell eight physical cores from 4 cores+4 threads, or eight spoofed cores………….. I felt as tho I had hit the jackpot when my computer(s) ran bigadv work units despite not meeting spec.s.

Look on the bright side: they aren’t making the change until after the holiday race……… :)

I say let's try to run them out of work units............. :twisted:
 

somethingsketchy

Golden Member
Nov 25, 2008
1,019
0
71
Technically, from what I’ve read, we (I7, SB2600K) aren’t supposed to be able to run the –bigadv work units in the first place. It is only because the client can’t tell eight physical cores from 4 cores+4 threads, or eight spoofed cores………….. I felt as tho I had hit the jackpot when my computer(s) ran bigadv work units despite not meeting spec.s.

Though in that case (if the project managers didn't want consumer hardware running -bigadv), I wonder why they had released a GPU client for consumer level GPUs? I expected Quadro or Tesla cards to be in full force.
 

GLeeM

Elite Member
Apr 2, 2004
7,199
128
106
You would think that they would want the participation of people with Nehalem i7s and SB 2600Ks, but not, they want to shun them, and lump them back in with the SMP guys.
I would guess the opposite, that -bigadv is slowing down and the few 16+ core rigs will be able to handle the load and that they need the speed of the i7 and SBs on more important SMP projects.
 

ThatsABigOne

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 2010
4,422
23
81
All I can say is that I am dissapointed. Why not make another client and keep the current client alive???
 

theAnimal

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2003
3,828
23
76
Though in that case (if the project managers didn't want consumer hardware running -bigadv), I wonder why they had released a GPU client for consumer level GPUs? I expected Quadro or Tesla cards to be in full force.

AFAIK there is no difference for F@H with Quadro or Tesla compared to regular video cards, the thing that matters most is number of shaders and shader clock.
 

ZipSpeed

Golden Member
Aug 13, 2007
1,302
169
106
Good thing I didn't invest into a 2600k rig as I was thinking of building another bigadv rig for the race. I can understand the need (and from what I read, a fairly sizeable backlog) to crunch regular SMP WUs though.

I haven't decided what I will do next. I may focus more on BOINC biology projects like WCG and Correlizer.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
9,686
4,346
136
www.teamjuchems.com