F@H vs S@H: Benchmarks

[amd_man2005]

Awesome work man! :thumb:

[Fatguy3]

Danke, I just found my Works Suite 99 Disk (Super Ghetto Version) and I'm gonna draw up some sweet ass graphs and shizat, ya know, for the ladies :devil:

[Wiggo]

Danke, I just found my Works Suite 99 Disk (Super Ghetto Version) and I'm gonna draw up some sweet ass graphs and shizat, ya know, for the ladies :devil:

So what happened with those graphs? :?:

[minibubba]

there's a very in-depth anyalsis of f@H and system performace here: http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2002q...t/index.x?pg=1

and it even includes graphs :)

here's the conclusion for those of you too lazy to follow the link and actually read it:

[b]The results of our testing couldn't be clearer, at least for the systems we've tested today. Quite simply, the impact of running Folding@Home in the background is negligible. Even the most discerning users won't notice it. Windows allocates CPU time slices according to process priority, and as long as the Folding@Home client is running as an idle-priority task (which is how it runs by default), one shouldn't notice any slowdown. Remember that we're also running FireDaemon in the background, and the impact of this small service management tool is also negligible.

With the results we've seen here, one more exuse for not donating excess CPU time to the Folding@Home project is gone. Whether you're playing games, encoding media files, surfing the web, slaving away in a cubicle at work, or mumbling to your computer, running the Folding@Home client won't slow you down. To effectively fold, however, you will need an always-on Internet connection. Also, expect to pay a few dollars a month extra on your electric bill as your system's CPU crunches away at full tilt all the time. In my book, those are small sacrifices, especially if you count completing a work unit as your good deed for the day.

So why not head on over to Stanford's Folding@Home page and download the client?

seem right on par with what Fatguy3 has already told us :)