75-76_468-478M_wu_24296 took 2 minutes 5 seconds 9,000 credits
/ 
Reply
Quote
75-76_498-510M_wu_23088 took 1 minutes 56 seconds 9,000 credits
/ Reply
Quote
just trapped, i quit.
/ Reply
Quote
just trapped, i quit.
What do you mean by "just trapped"?
If you leave it will be ashamed to lose you
/ Reply
Quote
Credit dropped again for the latest task.
Down to 8,000 credits now.
/ Reply
Quote
Credit dropped again for the latest task.
Down to 8,000 credits now.
Yes tasks are now giving 8000 credits
Credit dropped some time ago I can't remember exactly when this is completely normal behaviour.
/ Reply
Quote
rebirtherVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 2 Jan 13
Posts: 7993
Credit: 44,538,964
RAC: 1
Credit dropped again for the latest task.
Down to 8,000 credits now.
Yes tasks are now giving 8000 credits
Credit dropped some time ago I can't remember exactly when this is completely normal behaviour.
The runtime went down slightly.
On the reference AMD RX5500 XT card it is running ~46min per WU, credits are 10k per hour. The higher the range the faster the runtime = less credits.
/ Reply
Quote
Credit dropped again for the latest task.
Down to 8,000 credits now.
Yes tasks are now giving 8000 credits
Credit dropped some time ago I can't remember exactly when this is completely normal behaviour.
The runtime went down slightly.
On the reference AMD RX5500 XT card it is running ~46min per WU, credits are 10k per hour. The higher the range the faster the runtime = less credits.
Thanks for the explanation Reb.
Out of curiosity, going forward will credits drop by 500 or 1000? Example will we go from 8000 to 7500 or will we go 8000 to 7000 credits.
It is also completely possible that I missed the tasks that gave out 8500 credits
/ Reply
Quote
rebirtherVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 2 Jan 13
Posts: 7993
Credit: 44,538,964
RAC: 1
Credit dropped again for the latest task.
Down to 8,000 credits now.
Yes tasks are now giving 8000 credits
Credit dropped some time ago I can't remember exactly when this is completely normal behaviour.
The runtime went down slightly.
On the reference AMD RX5500 XT card it is running ~46min per WU, credits are 10k per hour. The higher the range the faster the runtime = less credits.
Thanks for the explanation Reb.
Out of curiosity, going forward will credits drop by 500 or 1000? Example will we go from 8000 to 7500 or will we go 8000 to 7000 credits.
It is also completely possible that I missed the tasks that gave out 8500 credits
sometimes I tested too late a new batch.
/ Reply
Quote
On the reference AMD RX5500 XT card it is running ~46min per WU, credits are 10k per hour. The higher the range the faster the runtime = less credits.
That's a good way to award credit based on a reference hardware. Just make sure you have backup or a secondary reference hardware that can be used in case the original card has problem ;)
This is similar to what Folding@Home is using: https://foldingathome.org/faq/points/
They are using an old intel i5-750. For new generation of gpus, the credit awarded for completing the task is highly inflated and also a reflection of how much the hardware has improved over the past 16 years since the i5-750 was released in 2009. Note: they have quick return bonus which added to the inflated credit also but the concept I think is reasonable.
We have a single benchmark machine, its most important component is its processor: a Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU 750 @ 2.67GHz. The machine’s OS is Linux. Here are the steps that we use to determine points for a project:
Take a WU from a project and run it on the benchmark machine until it finishes.
Measure the time it took to complete. Base credit awarded for the WU is then just a scaling factor multiplied by this time.
/ Reply
Quote
TF_75-76_530-540M_wu_85 took 1 minutes 54 seconds 8,000 credits
/ Reply
Quote
75-76_540-550M_wu_4538 took 2 minutes 26 seconds 8,000 credits yes you read correctly the time has increased. I hope this will drop as we get further into the range
/ Reply
Quote
rebirtherVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 2 Jan 13
Posts: 7993
Credit: 44,538,964
RAC: 1
75-76_540-550M_wu_4538 took 2 minutes 26 seconds 8,000 credits yes you read correctly the time has increased. I hope this will drop as we get further into the range
There were 15k resent results from 300-400M, 540-550M is the right order.
/ Reply
Quote
75-76_540-550M_wu_4538 took 2 minutes 26 seconds 8,000 credits yes you read correctly the time has increased. I hope this will drop as we get further into the range
There were 15k resent results from 300-400M, 540-550M is the right order.
Thanks for the information.
I'm not talking about the order of results I am talking about the runtime for 540-550M
540-550M runtime is 2 minutes 26 seconds. I would have expected them to run for around 1 minute and 52 seconds or less because that was the time of the previous batch. Since we have gone to a higher bit level I would expect runtime to be the same as the previous batch or faster
/ Reply
Quote
rebirtherVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 2 Jan 13
Posts: 7993
Credit: 44,538,964
RAC: 1
75-76_540-550M_wu_4538 took 2 minutes 26 seconds 8,000 credits yes you read correctly the time has increased. I hope this will drop as we get further into the range
There were 15k resent results from 300-400M, 540-550M is the right order.
Thanks for the information.
I'm not talking about the order of results I am talking about the runtime for 540-550M
540-550M runtime is 2 minutes 26 seconds. I would have expected them to run for around 1 minute and 52 seconds or less because that was the time of the previous batch. Since we have gone to a higher bit level I would expect runtime to be the same as the previous batch faster
The name of the batch should be 300-540M. There is no change in the 300-500M range (110k missing results in total). I'm pretty sure we will get more resends next time. Of course 300-400M results are slower than we have currently.
/ Reply
Quote
75-76_540-550M_wu_4538 took 2 minutes 26 seconds 8,000 credits yes you read correctly the time has increased. I hope this will drop as we get further into the range
There were 15k resent results from 300-400M, 540-550M is the right order.
Thanks for the information.
I'm not talking about the order of results I am talking about the runtime for 540-550M
540-550M runtime is 2 minutes 26 seconds. I would have expected them to run for around 1 minute and 52 seconds or less because that was the time of the previous batch. Since we have gone to a higher bit level I would expect runtime to be the same as the previous batch faster
The name of the batch should be 300-540M. There is no change in the 300-500M range (110k missing results in total). I'm pretty sure we will get more resends next time. Of course 300-400M results are slower than we have currently.
Appreciate the feedback.
The task I used and my first message at the top of this post I copy and pasted the name directly from my results. I will process whatever work comes my way.
Time will tell whether or not longer runtime means more credit.
/ Reply
Quote
75-76_550-560M_wu_97 took 1 minutes 50 seconds 7,500 credits
/ Reply
Quote
75-76_453-458M_wu_2300 took 2 minutes 9 seconds 9,500 credits
75-76_565-570M_wu_54086 took 1 minute 46 seconds 7,500 credits
/ Reply
Quote