Due to how power saving and turbo boost is implemented in processors, it is much more efficient to run 50% of the time over every core than to use 50% of the cores.

How about disabling the Turbo like I do?

---

Help, my tagline is missing..... Help, my tagline is......... Help, m........ Hel.....

Yes, that could help and it is easy to do on most PCs. However, you can't do that on OS X easily (if at all). Or at least on models where the hack is available, I don't expect my fellow crunchers to having to jump through so much hoops for this.

I made a quick howto with screenshots about Rosetta@home setup instructions to recruit completely casual computer users and after seeing the overview, I was dismayed with the sheer volume of setup steps required even for a basic configuration. No wonder so little people joined after my call for action.

Sorry, I forgot another important factor to consider: letting hyperthreading do its magic of (doing computation on stalls) can again increase your efficiency. A quick test also showed that when using the same amount of cores with or without HT, the power consumption was the same, but depending on project, productivity could boost by at least 10-30%.

Any reasonable quality motherboard should be up to the challenge of handling any such random load, as many games also produce random load spikes. This is why very old machines plagued by bad caps can appear stable under SuperPI but will freeze randomly within games. You may also choose a rapid modulation cycle time that would get smoothed out by inductors and capacitors - I myself use 1000ms on most of my hardware where this is needed, but you could go down to 100ms I guess.

Thanks for the walkthrough about the needed setting on your platform. Yes, I meant the original comment to apply after you have optimized every power saving option available.

Let me reiterate that my comment still applies in any context: it is never power efficient to run a single core vs. over all cores divided by utilization. Though I acknowledge that sometimes you do want to reserve a few threads if you work interactively without suspending computation.

As an extreme example, running BOINC on a single core of a thermal-limited laptop (like an i9 MacBook Pro) heats it up to 101C and spins the fans at 100% (5500 RPM). Whereas modulating BOINC to run over all cores 40% of the time heats it to 80-90C with fan speeds around a calm 3000 RPM (and at 20%: 70C, 2000 RPM, the minimum).

Any GPU tasks just here?

---

Any GPU tasks just here?

Nope.
CPU applications only.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Thanks for that, but also a bit of pity for not running this project, because here quite much up to standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_cords

The third link should be viewed as the dessert here, for not any therapies it could be instead.

Apparently habilitation and rehabilitation is not the same, when also not any hotel for possible convalescence perhaps high up in the mountain,
for just sitting in a chair, below a carpet.

Here a video being watched for that of a self-test for the Covid-19 desease or infection, where a small hole is being punched in a finger.

Makes an association with almost a half litre of blood being pulled from my arm, next making for Arthritis as the possible result.

So here not any red blood cells for rather genes instead, when still possible therapies for curing some deseases.

To my best knowledge there are some twenty amino acids making up the human body, and here four of particular interest.

One thing is making it reason for life by means of only a question of any "sake" we perhaps could make, except that conditions for such are still only nature.

With the other project. it rather became Certainty for making such a condition for the Religion it perhaps could be, when still only quantizing for the better instead.

One thing is making it still change happening for only Evolution taking place over time, except not any related it should be either.

Any dynamic for just having one thing affecting the other, and it became Cause and Effect for such a thing, where still not any relative for only time.

Here we know that Interaction could be still the Fundamental Forces of nature, and the way elementary particles could be interacting with each other.

But here only Physics, for not any Chemistry it could be instead, and next also Biology for the mechanisms dealing with the living body for that of both sleep and awakeness.

Also that I questioned the meaning of any Proof just meant, for also the Methods we could choose to use for the same thing.

But here should tell that I switched both motherboard and processor for just the little better, when still not any below the carpet for only a blood transfusion being made.

So here not any summer time just either, but only a better moment instead, for that of sitting in the chair, and having to wait to next year, for that of more sunshine.

---

And not doing it here for this thing right now, except also contributing to science for just only being fair.

Next enough said for not any more, because here only just thinking that this project should be nice and clean for just only meant.

So it goes, except still only the same for that of science, except the mouse still not any following me, for only just up to standards.

My computer is here only a Intel Core i9 10920X, for not any mentioned before, when also two GTX 1080 cards.

Perhaps a comma here instead for that of a previous post, and here I did not any notice.

---

I have a question which fits here.
Which O/S produces the most credits? Windows 10 or Ubuntu?
Surely someone knows and for those chasing the most output, this is a great question.

---

Which O/S produces the most credits? Windows 10 or Ubuntu?

This is one of the few projects that is about the same. I run mainly Ubuntu, but have run both Win7 and Win10 some.
I don't see any obvious difference. I think you would have to do some long-term testing on identical machines to see any.

---

Thanks for the reply Jim. Appreciated.

---

I'm trying to remember if Credit per machine is relative to its score on this project, or if it's luck of the draw. I think it's the latter and I should just ignore it.
My 4790 is doing much worse than either of my 4770s credit wise. Even my two little 3570s's are doing better, actually they're probably getting the most credit out of all my CPU's apart from the 1 Ryzen 3700x.
Is it worth upping the runtime and running for 24 hours, or is 8 hours doing just fine for most folks?

I'm trying to remember if Credit per machine is relative to its score on this project, or if it's luck of the draw. I think it's the latter and I should just ignore it.
My 4790 is doing much worse than either of my 4770s credit wise. Even my two little 3570s's are doing better, actually they're probably getting the most credit out of all my CPU's apart from the 1 Ryzen 3700x.

Running just a single project 24/7 with no cache it takes around 6-8 weeks for RAC to level off. The more projects you run, and the larger your cache, the longer it will take for your RAC to stabilise around it's nominal value. Set you cache to zero, and let things be for 2 months and your RAC for each system should get to it's nominal value by then end of that 2 months.

Just how much RAC you will get for any given system will depend heavily on clock speed, processor model & version, and how much time a system has to actually process work. 2 systems of the same specs will eventually end up with RACs within a few percent of each other, if they also have the same up time & processing time.

Is it worth upping the runtime and running for 24 hours, or is 8 hours doing just fine for most folks?

There is no point in changing the runtime. The Credit per hour is (pretty much) the same regardless of how long the Task runs for- running 1 Task for 24 hours will result in the same Credit as running 3 Tasks of the same type for 8 hours each. However processing 3 different Tasks will provide more different useful results than running just the 1 Task over the same time frame as running the 3 different ones.
The project chose 8 hours because it gives them a suitable result in the time frame they want, so it's best to stick with that. If a Task needs more time, it will run for longer (up to an additional 10 hour limit).

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I'm trying to remember if Credit per machine is relative to its score on this project, or if it's luck of the draw. I think it's the latter and I should just ignore it.
My 4790 is doing much worse than either of my 4770s credit wise. Even my two little 3570s's are doing better, actually they're probably getting the most credit out of all my CPU's apart from the 1 Ryzen 3700x.

Running just a single project 24/7 with no cache it takes around 6-8 weeks for RAC to level off. The more projects you run, and the larger your cache, the longer it will take for your RAC to stabilise around it's nominal value. Set you cache to zero, and let things be for 2 months and your RAC for each system should get to it's nominal value by then end of that 2 months.

Just how much RAC you will get for any given system will depend heavily on clock speed, processor model & version, and how much time a system has to actually process work. 2 systems of the same specs will eventually end up with RACs within a few percent of each other, if they also have the same up time & processing time.

Thank you. Should I set both values to 0 e.g. keep at least and keep up to an additional?

Is it worth upping the runtime and running for 24 hours, or is 8 hours doing just fine for most folks?

There is no point in changing the runtime. The Credit per hour is (pretty much) the same regardless of how long the Task runs for- running 1 Task for 24 hours will result in the same Credit as running 3 Tasks of the same type for 8 hours each. However processing 3 different Tasks will provide more different useful results than running just the 1 Task over the same time frame as running the 3 different ones.
The project chose 8 hours because it gives them a suitable result in the time frame they want, so it's best to stick with that. If a Task needs more time, it will run for longer (up to an additional 10 hour limit).[/quote]
Exactly the info I was looking for. Right now I'm crunching this and WCG ARP, which take significantly longer than Roseta, as well as 1 or 2 CPDN (given l3 cache limitations with their N216 especially, and a lot of my processors aren't the most modern).

Should I set both values to 0 e.g. keep at least and keep up to an additional?

Both to 0 or close to it, eg 0.01 & 0.01). If one project is out of work for a while, other projects will take it's place. When it gets work again, BOINC will process more of it for a while to balance out things according to your Resource share settings. So no need to cache work.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Should I set both values to 0 e.g. keep at least and keep up to an additional?

Both to 0 or close to it, eg 0.01 & 0.01). If one project is out of work for a while, other projects will take it's place. When it gets work again, BOINC will process more of it for a while to balance out things according to your Resource share settings. So no need to cache work.

Thanks! Set that now and will see how it works out.