F@H- GUI vs text only console

[1sikbITCH]

It seems that the F@H site doesn't address this, and I also searched thru the F@H thread here. I just didn't see it anywhere.

I notice in another thread for Seti that the console version runs faster than the GUI. I assume it's the same for F@H? I always leave F@H minimized and running in the background.

Also, I remember earlier people were talking about running F@H as a service. Will I see a performance increase by doing that as well?

 

[ProviaFan]

GUI vs. CLI - CLI wins, but by a very slim margin. It's nothing like SETI, where your times decrease by a factor of 2 when switching from GUI to CLI. The only time you'd see a significant difference between GUI and CLI performance is if you kept the GUI up and running a lot. Now, F@H screensaver vs. GUI or CLI would be like SETI GUI vs. CLI (the F@H screensaver sucks).

CLI vs. CLI as a service - Not much, if any. Consider that when you run the CLI as a service, you are probably more likely to run a separate monitoring app (such as EMIII or KDFold), which may consume an odd CPU cycle or two every little while (it's nothing enough to make a noticeable difference, IMHO).

 

[Slider76]

I'm deffinatly with J on this one.
I switched from the GUI to the CLI and notice a big difference, but that was beacuse of a change of versions. When I did a comparison of the new CLI vs the new GUI I think i noticed a 3% speed difference (CLI vs faster)