R@H v F@H

[scottish144]

I've been crunching R@H for a while but I've recently looked at F@H and read that it is optimized for Pentium Processors. Would it be any faster than R@H? I am currently running Win2K with a P3 1GHz Processor.

 

[brainwrinkle]

I think F@H is mostly optimized for P4. Only P4's get the huge bonus work units, anyway.

 

[GLeeM]

Originally posted by: brainwrinkle
I think F@H is mostly optimized for P4. Only P4's get the huge bonus work units, anyway.

Sorry brainwrinkle!

Both sentences are totally wrong.

F@H is not optimized for any CPU.

There WAS one new technology type of WU that they tried that was tested on AMD and Intel CPUs, with associated compliers and libraries, and found to run best on Intel P4/Xeon (mostly because of Intel licensed libraries), so while that test project was running it was available only to Intel P4/Xeons with at least 512 MB ram.

ALL other WUs (bonus or regular) are available to any CPU AND run best on AMD, just like most other DC projects do. A fast Pentium M does pretty good on many WUs.

To answer your question: it would not be faster crunching F@H than R@H.

Here is a quote from Vijay Pande, the head of F@H:

"The people behind Rosetta are great, so I have hope they will do something nice with Rosetta@home." Found here.

 

[Insidious]

I've crunched them both Scottish.
Both are great projects with great groups of crunchers to keep you company.

I suggest browsing the forums, lurking the stats threads and let your gut point you to the one that is most appealing to you.

Speedwise, I don't think you can really compare.... the scoring scales dont really relate to each other.

-Sid