• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Changes to bigadv coming Jan 16

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.
 
somethingsketchy said:
While I don't participate in the F@H, those minimum requirements are ridiculous.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
Pokey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
VirtualLarry said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
somethingsketchy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top