HT and DC

[Overkiller]

~also posted in the cpu forum~


could i get further clarification:

I do distributed computing clients (Seventeen or bust ) right now. i think that doing a distributed computing client (be it medical, scientific, monetary, etc) is a great way to use spare cpu resources...now onto HT.

Would it be better to run a DC client on a say 3.0ghz p4C or to run 2 instances of the client on a 3.0 p4C...does it not equate into the same thing considering that a DC client uses up 100% of a computers spare resources?
So, basciallyt w/ HT enabled when i fire up a DC client will it automatically only use 50% of the computer's resources thereby forcing me to go the route of 2 instances? I multi-task a lot but nothing where the client cannot slow down for a bit and give up it's resources.

i am just slightly confused as to which would be more beneficial for a box that runs DC 24/7

 

[ProviaFan]

[untested theory pulled out of rectum]
Running a single instance of a DC client on a computer with HT will not be 50% of the output of two instances. However, there may be a (very small) gain with some projects. A slightly larger gain might be noticed when running two projects that perform different types of calculations.
[/untested theory...]

 

[Intelligence3]

Using SETI on my machine with a 2.8c, I got ~2 hours per unit when running one instance, and ~3 hours per unit running two instances. That translates to 12 units per day with one instance and 16 with two. So it's about 33% more efficient ti use HT, IME. I have no idea if this would work as well with SOB.

HTH

 

[Confused]

If you are using the Service Install, then you can easily set it up to work with HT, and it will open another client. Just keep an eye on your stats or the cEMs/sec for each client, and let us know how it does


Confused

 

[Overkiller]

i haven't gotten the puppy yet ..

and when i do it most likely will be running 3.2ghz.. (hoping!)

i was assuming that w/ HT it would be faster but wasn't quite sure because technially the CPu should be 100% used in both instances so i was thinking that it *might* be the same..

thx for the responses!

 

[SinfulWeeper]

3.2GHz...
I think your handle name might be getting the best of you.

Just get a 2.6GHz or 2.8GHz and see if you can get a OC to 3.2GHz.
I myself would opt for the 2.6GHz and hope to get a 240FSB OC. Most PC 3500 will handle that speed peachy. Or even that 2.8 with a 230FSB.
Otherwise the price/performance on my observations would not be worth the price of that 3.2GHz. Not to mention any of the CPU's I listed will run faster if you get a 3.2GHz +/- OC. And with 1:1 mem-timings... it would be a most sweet rig .

Otherwise I can not comment about HT