UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
Get 3DNow! Message Board
Team 3DNow! SETI
Your hardware, your average time?
profile | register | preferences | faq | search
|
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
|
Get 3DNow! Message Board Team 3DNow! SETI Your hardware, your average time?
|
| Author | Topic: Your hardware, your average time? |
| Armin High Priest of Athlon |
 posted July 08, 1999 23:41  
I am using a K6-III clocked at 400 MHz (4*100, 450 locks up on SETI - and SETI alone!), 128 MB, MVP3 chipset. Average time per unit is around 37 hours under Windows 98, didn't complete one yet under Linux. IP: Logged |
| MeenMunky Follower of Athlon |
posted July 09, 1999 12:31
For SETI and RC5 I use a cheap-ass Compaq that I won at Radio Shack. It has a K6-2 350 MHz, 128 MB Ram, MVP3 chipset. My average time for SETI is a little over 28 hours in Win98. I have it set to always run and leave it on overnight when I wake up in the morning and turn on the monitor I see the BLUE_SCREEN_OF_DEATH. 
[This message has been edited by MeenMunky (edited July 09, 1999).] IP: Logged |
| Armin High Priest of Athlon |
posted July 09, 1999 11:56
I have some first Linux numbers, let it run for 11 hours and completed 80%, that is significantly faster than Windows 98. IP: Logged |
| MeenMunky Follower of Athlon |
posted July 09, 1999 17:04
Woah, don't proclain Linux the champ yet! I'm just testing the DOS mode client and it is significantly faster than the normal gui one! You can get it at: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/unix.html It is the one that says: i386-winnt-cmdline Sure it says WindowsNT but, its DOS, trust me [This message has been edited by MeenMunky (edited July 09, 1999).] IP: Logged |
| Akma Follower of Athlon |
posted July 19, 1999 02:06
I've got a K6-2 266, clocked to 350 (3.5*100) and 96MB memory. The average time with Win98 client is around 28 hours. I found the NT command line version no faster than the graphical version (I run Seti constantly in the background and minimized = without graphics). Linux does the job in some 18 hours. For comparison, my i166MMX clocked to 200 takes 20 hours to process a unit (Linux).
[This message has been edited by Akma (edited July 19, 1999).] IP: Logged |
| Adrian Priest of Athlon |
posted July 19, 1999 12:26
I tried the DOS version of SETI, and it didnt run on mine or my brothers Win 95 machine. I think I need it (and the 3dnow! optimised version) - Im up to 125 hours for my first unit still. Thats on a K6-2 400. IP: Logged |
| Akma Follower of Athlon |
posted July 20, 1999 06:04
Adrian, what you need is a life! 
Seriously speaking, it seems that you are using V1.00 and a lousy (?) graphics card... If so, you should upgrade to V1.06. There is no other way a K6-2 400 would need hundreds of hours to work on a unit (unless the computer runs a zillion other CPU intensive tasks as well). When I ran V1.00 on an Intel Pentium 133 it took some 100 hours to process a unit. Sadly, the command line version only works in 98 and NT. The bit referring to a lousy gfx card, is that I (and my martian friends Also, you should run the program in the background, ie. prevent it from drawing the gfx. That should speed it up. [This message has been edited by Akma (edited July 20, 1999).] IP: Logged |
| Adrian Priest of Athlon |
posted July 20, 1999 12:14
I had to run SETI only as a screensaver because it was chewing up processor time, but it was counting the hours my compter had been on .
Ive upgraded to 1.06, and can now have it running all of the time. Yes its a lot quicker too (nearly 20% today after nearly 5 hours). It looks like im gonna try and install 98 again ... or wait for the 3dnow! optimised version. IP: Logged |
| Ragnarok_Gold Celeron Worshipper |
posted July 20, 1999 20:57
I have a Celeron 450 (uh oh...I know....I am upgrading to K7 when I it comes down in price and I have the chance....:.)) Anyways I do about 13 hours per work unit. NOt to bad compared to some of the other results. I run the program in the backround constantly and have almost no problems. 128 MB RAM and the MHz most likely help. I am using the command line version of SETI. (setiathome-1.3.i386-winnt-cmdline) [This message has been edited by Ragnarok_Gold (edited July 20, 1999).] IP: Logged |
| F.Toguchi Celeron Worshipper |
posted July 21, 1999 02:47
SETI@home Client-1.05 is running on my K6-III machine. (Memory=SDRAM 128MB,Clock=105x4.0=420MHz,OS=Win98/Japanese) Result:minimum=5hr,Maximum=14hr,average=10hr50min(53units) CommandLine-client(1.20) for winNT run as same-speed as So now I set as below. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| Bjoern Lieske Celeron Worshipper |
posted July 21, 1999 13:34
Hi Team Members! I entered the SETI-Team-3Now! using my three Home K6-2 350 machines, beginning with 5 work units. To push the stats (and the fame of this team ;-) I am running the SETI-Textmode clients on all machines within my reach: my three K6-2 350 MHz Home PCs two Silicon Graphics O2 Workstations - during weekends only :-( a *hot* Dual-P-III machine (0,5 GIG RAM, 50 GIGs HD, ...) 5 - 7 other PII/PIII machines btw... AMD Athlon Rulez ;-) cu IP: Logged |
| ToM_1st Follower of Athlon |
posted July 21, 1999 15:56
Hey, at first its good to have some folks here who think the same..... I'm using a AMD K6 II 350 MHz 64 MB Ram .... and it need's 35 hours or so I'm running Win95, is there a other possibility to get it faster ?? Dosmode or textversion for Win9x ?? It's quite cool to optimize it for 3dnow !! If I could do it, i would do it.... S U P P O R T A M D !! IP: Logged |
| MrHeat Celeron Worshipper |
posted July 21, 1999 22:00
Hi there I just wanted to say hello and tell you about my strange experiences with SETI@home. I run SETI@home(GUI) under Win98 on 4 different hardwares. A K6-2 300 MHz (Rage Pro), a P2 266MHz (Riva128), a P2 400 MHz (G200) and a Celeron 300A @ 450 MHz (G200) all with 128 MB RAM. The strange things happened with the 300 K6-2 and 266 P2 while running SETI v1.00. They both started by using 30-40 hours per WU, that was ok. I didn't run Seti when I was using them for daily work so they worked nights only (So the stats wouldn't be ruined) Then suddenly one day I notice that the P2 266 takes only 17 hours per WU and the K6-2 takes 40-50 hours. I was puzzled by this since I hadn't made any changes to either machine. The a week later K6-2 decides to join the P2 266 and does the WU's in 17-18 hours, still without me having changed anything. At this time they had proccessed approx. 60 WU's with the help of the P2 400 which had taken 24-25 hours per WU. A few days ago I the got the Celeron which does a WU in 27-28 hours. I never got to try v1.05 or 1.06, because I got the NT version after reading about it here. Now all machines do WU's in 9-12 hours. Can anyone explain the sudden changes in time to proccess a WU using the v1.00 Win98 SETI? My personal theory is Graphics Card drivers. That is the only thing that I may have changed, though I'm not sure I did. I hope someone can use this for something and that someone may have an answer to my question. Best regards MrHeat. [This message has been edited by MrHeat (edited July 21, 1999).] IP: Logged |
| Brandon Celeron Worshipper |
posted July 22, 1999 02:06
I'm currently running the latest cmdline version on NT4.0 SP5 with a K6-2 350MHz/128Mb of RAM and I'm crunching about 10% of the WU every 1.4hrs. So if you do the math that's 14hrs/WU if I'm not using the machine
Cheers, IP: Logged |
| Brandon Celeron Worshipper |
posted July 22, 1999 02:08
I forgot to mention that previously I was getting about 30hrs/WU running the GUI client (graphics on) using an Oxygen VX1 on the above config. Cheers, IP: Logged |
| Osiris Priest of Athlon |
posted July 22, 1999 14:33
Average Times I don't have, but here is what I am running: 4 x PII -400's cmd-line installed as service Steve ------------------ IP: Logged |
| daviddth Follower of Athlon |
posted July 22, 1999 22:47
K6 2-450 (Well a 400 overclocked to 450) averages WU's at around 18 hours. 20 hours if I use the PC at times... System includes 96MB SDRAM, and 10.2GB HDD. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| Vestus Celeron Worshipper |
posted July 23, 1999 13:55
I don't have any numbers in front of me, but I wonder if the work unit/time difference may be due to the data in the unit itself. Ex a slice with just simple quiet static may be simpler to process than a noisy section. I'll definitely have to try the command line version and see how it works. IP: Logged |
| dethrai Follower of Athlon |
posted July 24, 1999 12:57
K6-2 350@400Mhz Iwill XA100 Plus mobo 64Mb PC100 SDRAm average WU=22 h & some change.
Anyone in the states got a "cheap" 300Mb+ IDE drive they would like to part with so I can get another number cruncher up and running for Team 3DNow? [This message has been edited by dethrai (edited July 24, 1999).] IP: Logged |
| Coyote Follower of Athlon |
posted July 24, 1999 14:40
Hi all Well (bracing for a slam now) i'm using a celeron 366 @ 415 and that is doing around 28 hours to finish a unit too. So in perspective the K6-2 350's out there overclocked or not seem very capable of keeping up with my peice of crap. I mean my machine runs like a freakin snail and i've optimized it as best i know (although there is probably some more tweaking i can do). Well once my student loan comes through i'll be an AMD man again so i'll post u some comparabile results. Coyote IP: Logged |
| Duster Celeron Worshipper |
posted July 24, 1999 19:27
k6-III 450, win 98, 128 megs of ram was downloading Netscape4.61 and installed it, and I had the BSOD once (what windows, heh). 14 hours 44 minutes using cli client. Is there a way I can really check my average time with this cpu using the command line? (and I am often not home when it decided to update/flush). IP: Logged |
| Aslak Heggland Follower of Athlon |
posted July 25, 1999 09:45
K6-2 350MHz oc to 448MHz(112x4) 128MB RAM I use 15-16 hours with the Win98-version. Aslak Heggland IP: Logged |
| daviddth Follower of Athlon |
posted July 26, 1999 05:07
Duster, Get a copy of SetiView to check your stats - the New version (To be placed on the website in a day or so and called SetiWatch) will have a complete logging function... See http://zap.to/clubteam for the site address.. Dave IP: Logged |
| fyodor High Priest of Athlon |
posted July 26, 1999 19:35
K6-2/333 (3.5x95), 128MB pc100, MVP3 Win95 14-18 hours / unit running minimized. 40+ hours running as Screensaver. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| iriches Celeron Worshipper |
posted July 27, 1999 06:57
k6-2 266 running at 4x75, 128MB, Ali 4+ Chipset, Win95. About 28 hours / unit, running minimised. Ian ------------------ IP: Logged |
| scott-boy Celeron Worshipper |
posted July 27, 1999 08:34
OK here are the statistics I promissed. 1rst system is an AMD K6 300 (non 3D now)Aptiva with 64MB Ram 128k cache 2nd System is an AMD K6 II 350 (3Dnow)Custom made on a 5mvp3 Version 5 board with 192 MB ram, 1MB cache Packet 1 on system 1 Total time 26hr 12min 14.8 sec (I first ran with all apps iun back then closed all apps except Explorer and SETI) Packet 2 System 2 Currently at 89.550% Time 20hr 5min 4 sec (will have it continue later. now it seems that 3dnow has no impact on time, nor the ammount of memory or cache. I asked an expert I knwo that understands the seti program. It doesn't utilize Floating points high enough to make an impact on either system. It is a simple mathimatical program that scans line codes of the frequency and starts elemenating specific ones, bit by bit. He did say that making adjustments in back ground apps and such can make a difference on systems with lower ram. Adjsuting BIOS can effect memory to CPU tranfer rates. So PC 100 Ram can be better but by a very small margine. Processor speed can have the highest impact. A friend ran it on a celeron 400 and got a packet done in 24 hrs (aprox same size packet.) some packets will take longer some a shorter time. If you find a way to tweak things that really effect the performance let me know. i will continue using both systems, giving them rests tiem to time. The k6-II I will use for normal work during day and it will run SETI all night. The k6 300 will run all day. Hope I can help our scores. P.S. if you can tell me if the linux version is faster and works on Windows 98 SE, tell me how to move files and get it working. If it is much faster.. Thanks all and have fun.... GO 3D NOW!!!! IP: Logged |
| All times are ET (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All submissions are copyrighted by their respective authors and are not for re-use in any form without their explicit written consent.
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.37
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998 - 1999.
Membaca review slot online bisa menjadi panduan yang sangat berguna. Review sering kali memberikan informasi tentang RTP slot tertinggi dan pengalaman pemain sebelumnya. Dengan memilih slot gacor yang telah direkomendasikan, peluang untuk menang dapat meningkat. Jadi, jangan lewatkan untuk memeriksa ulasan sebelum mulai bermain.
Beberapa situs kini menawarkan Slot Depo 5k sebagai pilihan deposit yang sedikit lebih tinggi, memberikan lebih banyak variasi dalam permainan dan peluang kemenangan. Meskipun sedikit lebih besar, modal ini tetap cukup terjangkau bagi banyak pemain.
Jika Anda menyukai permainan yang menggabungkan strategi dengan keberuntungan, Slot Mahjong adalah pilihan yang tepat. Permainan ini menggabungkan elemen-elemen dari permainan Mahjong klasik dengan fitur-fitur permainan slot yang menguntungkan. Setiap putaran dalam Slot Mahjong memberikan pengalaman yang berbeda, dengan berbagai peluang untuk mendapatkan kemenangan besar berkat simbol-simbol unik yang tersedia.
Menemukan platform yang tepat sangat penting bagi pemain yang ingin mendapatkan keuntungan lebih dalam bermain. Salah satu yang paling sering dicari adalah Link Slot Gacor yang memberikan akses langsung ke berbagai permainan dengan peluang menang lebih tinggi. Dengan dukungan teknologi canggih, pemain bisa menikmati pengalaman bermain yang lebih nyaman dan menguntungkan setiap saat.
Berbagai fitur menarik yang ditawarkan oleh Slot Toto membuatnya selalu menjadi favorit di kalangan pemain. Mulai dari animasi yang memukau hingga jackpot yang besar, semua elemen dalam permainan ini dirancang untuk memberikan pengalaman terbaik. Tidak hanya itu, banyaknya variasi tema juga membuat pemain tidak cepat bosan. Dengan begitu, permainan ini terus berkembang dan menarik perhatian banyak orang.
Dunia slot online semakin kompetitif, namun Slot 777 tetap menjadi pilihan utama bagi banyak pemain. Hal ini tidak lepas dari sistem permainan yang adil dan transparan. Selain itu, mekanisme pembayaran yang cepat dan aman menjadi nilai tambah tersendiri. Dengan berbagai fitur unggulan, Slot 777 terus menarik perhatian pecinta slot yang mencari permainan berkualitas dengan peluang menang tinggi.
Untuk menikmati permainan togel dengan hadiah besar, penting memilih platform yang aman dan terpercaya. Salah satu rekomendasi terbaik adalah Situs Togel 2d, tempat yang ideal untuk pemain yang menginginkan hadiah besar.
Toto Togel adalah salah satu permainan togel yang dikenal dengan tingkat keseruan dan tantangannya. Pemain dapat memilih berbagai pasaran yang ada, seperti Singapura, Hongkong, dan banyak lagi. Dengan kemudahan dalam melakukan transaksi dan proses pendaftaran yang cepat, Toto Togel menjadi pilihan utama bagi mereka yang ingin meraih kemenangan besar.
Setiap pemain togel yang serius pasti mengamati Keluaran Macau dengan seksama. Pasaran ini dikenal dengan tingkat persaingan yang ketat, sehingga hasil keluaran Macau menjadi sangat penting. Dengan data keluaran yang akurat, pemain bisa merancang strategi taruhan yang lebih baik dan meningkatkan peluang mereka untuk meraih kemenangan.