I can't speak of others machines but on my computers w/ 2 5870s and 2 5970s for the past 9 hours my daily run rate projects to 1.06M. On MW those same machines produce 1.35M per day and run cooler to boot.

At this credit level it will make a nice backup project for when MW is down.

Im in it for the credit. I could give a rats a$$ about anything else. No acceptable credit no workee..see ya

96390 86694 11 May 2011 | 23:50:53 UTC 13 May 2011 | 4:44:27 UTC Completed and validated 886.29 14.13 2,240.00 Distributed.net Client v1.01 (ati14)
96389 86693 11 May 2011 | 23:50:53 UTC 13 May 2011 | 5:04:55 UTC Completed and validated 1,194.25 20.64 2,420.00 Distributed.net Client v1.01 (ati14)
96363 86667 11 May 2011 | 23:50:54 UTC 13 May 2011 | 5:43:46 UTC Completed and validated 2,202.21 42.65 2,230.00 Distributed.net Client v1.01 (ati14)

WTF

---

Hello fellow crunchers,

First apologies if I almost gave you an heart attack with this sudden credit change. I do believe this was a step in right direction (static credit vs. highly varying unfair credit) but agree that we went a bit too low.

I did a quick compare between top host of top participant for Mw, Collatz and us. Mw seems to give ~1.3 per runtime second, Collatz ~2.3 and we ~5.7-7.5 (this one was odd, for the same ~336 second runtime it completed different 383-501 stat unit tasks). So in this sense we seem to be still giving way more credits per runtime second than those two projects.

Of course, that statistic won't hold up if your host is not completing tasks this fast. From a quick look, I can see that most if not all people complaining in this thread might fall under this category. Some ATI-hosts could benefit from a switch to core 3 (older drivers) but then again, some seem to need a switch to core 0 (newer drivers) or to something else. Unfortunately, CUDA-hosts will not be as fast ATI-host on these tasks but even them shouldn't take several hours for one wu. (Core switch to 9 or 10 helps CUDA too.)

If you want to try optimizing your results immediately, you can go to project preferences (http://moowrap.net/prefs.php?subset=project) and switch your core. You can either try some suggestions found on these forums or run a benchmark to see what would be the optimum core for your host (there's some info and measurements at http://moowrap.net/forum_thread.php?id=28).

I do have few ideas to get people automatically up to speed, so to speak. This involves setting better default core preferences or running a benchmark automatically to select best core for the host.

Meanwhile, I'll bump the crediting to 7cr/stat units as promised in this news. (Which I edited to fix few mistakes, if you are wondering. I'm sorry about those.)

-w

Meanwhile, I'll bump the crediting to 7cr/stat units as promised in this news. (Which I edited to fix few mistakes, if you are wondering. I'm sorry about those.)

I'm still getting 5cr/stat unit so your change isn't in effect yet?

Meanwhile, I'll bump the crediting to 7cr/stat units as promised in this news. (Which I edited to fix few mistakes, if you are wondering. I'm sorry about those.)

-w

Still the same credits

Here is a fresh comparison I did on a HD5850 after the lift to 7

29930560 20419585 106472 13 May 2011 | 9:41:32 UTC 13 May 2011 | 10:02:13 UTC Completed and validated 104.28 9.16 213.76 MilkyWay@Home v0.62 (ati14)

104802 94903 12 May 2011 | 8:00:41 UTC 13 May 2011 | 9:30:04 UTC Completed and validated 946.20 35.23 1,910.00 Distributed.net Client v1.01 (ati1910/14)

83806836 36396737 3330 13 May 2011 9:52:09 UTC 13 May 2011 13:16:18 UTC Completed and validated 1,526.31 1,524.08 2,924.86 collatz Anonymous platform (ATI GPU)

1) MilkyWay = 2.0504 cr/sec
2) Moo! Wrapper = 2.0189 cr/sec
3) Collatz = 1.9162 cr/sec

EDIT This is with optimized core

---

Assuming there are others like me who can't make head nor tail of the project, or the benching I certainly vote for the auto-benching.

ASAP.

---

Team Renegades
Forum

New work are now at 7 credits/stats units.
Like you can see:
http://moowrap.net/result.php?resultid=123327
(384*7=2688)


Copycat-Digital, the reason is cause the work assigned were at 5.
All the new work will be at 7 now.

I'm still getting new WUs with mixed credit score

dnetc_r72_1305312210_7_448_0 114563 13 May 2011 | 19:28:09 UTC 13 May 2011 | 20:29:51 UTC Completed and validated 1,112.69 38.78 3,136.00 Distributed.net Client v1.01 (ati14)
x7

dnetc_r72_1305222194_6_383_1 103910 13 May 2011 | 21:03:40 UTC 13 May 2011 | 21:24:27 UTC Completed and validated 815.09 27.31 1,915.00 Distributed.net Client v1.01 (ati14)
x5
This WU was received after the first 1

?

---

I'm still getting new WUs with mixed credit score

dnetc_r72_1305312210_7_448_0 114563 13 May 2011 | 19:28:09 UTC 13 May 2011 | 20:29:51 UTC Completed and validated 1,112.69 38.78 3,136.00 Distributed.net Client v1.01 (ati14)
x7

dnetc_r72_1305222194_6_383_1 103910 13 May 2011 | 21:03:40 UTC 13 May 2011 | 21:24:27 UTC Completed and validated 815.09 27.31 1,915.00 Distributed.net Client v1.01 (ati14)
x5
This WU was received after the first 1

?

Maybe because the last one was a resend from the old batch;
http://moowrap.net/workunit.php?wuid=103910
And now you do the same; aborting all wu's?
http://moowrap.net/results.php?hostid=728

I usually don't complain about the Credits at any Project & just go with the flow. But you have cut the credits here so much since you started up I'm now only getting about 1/4 of what I was getting at the beginning of the Project.

I was getting 3.2 - 3.4 Million a day off the 3 ATI Box's I have left but yesterday only managed 775k. It's not worth running them here any more as I can re-fire up 1 of my NVIDIA Box's and get more off that 1 Box running PG than I now can get of the 3 ATI Box's running here. More Credit & less expense running 1 Box rather than 3 makes sense to me.

I always thought Collatz was the poorest paying Major ATI GPU Project but you've managed to usurp them and now have took over last place, congratulations ... lol ... ;)

Steve,
at 775k, this is when it was only 5 credit/stat units.
This has been increased at 7 credit/stat units.
So this will result, you should be around 995k/day now.

You are not to be pitied because owners are more than ATIs GPU taf and therefore more credit than those with Nvidia ...

---

Config : i7 860 2.8ghz, 8g ram, boinc : 6.12.26, GPU : GTX 470 Zotac Amp Edition 1280 mo DDR5

You are not to be pitied because owners are more than ATIs GPU taf and therefore more credit than those with Nvidia ...

Whatever are you Babbling about ...0_o

Steve,
at 775k, this is when it was only 5 credit/stat units.
This has been increased at 7 credit/stat units.
So this will result, you should be around 995k/day now.

Great, but I still can get more off 1 NVIDIA Box at PG, I realize this is not PG so the Credits will be different but whatever possessed you to cut the Credits as much as you have. Even at 995 it's less than 1/3 of what the Project started out as. Actually can get more off the ATI Cards at PG than here and this is supposed to be a ATI favored Project while PG s a NVIDIA favored Project ...

Congratulation admins on the right decision to go for a fixed credit system based on work achieved. Much fairer this way.

The previous credit output was ridiculously high. And don't worry about the moaning of the credit whores, they will not be missed or come back, i case you run a stable and reliable project, if the now supposedly higher projects are unstable or down.

If now you could only fix the problem for some multi GPU hosts where only some of the GPUs run at full power. This would be beautiful.

I`m not going into the credit discussion directly - just
mention that i would think half the outcome from the start
would be low enough. Thats totally my own opinion.

But - what i want to say something about is the previous
post here.. I come over this word "credit whores" in all
projects. Some people love to use it. And for what?
Some people have more credit than others, because they have
more boxes than others - or better cards. Also - may I
remind you that Boinc itself was made because people who is
not directly interested in the project science - should be
able to join in to help doing the work. The credit has No
value - other than the fun of it. So to get people to keep
On crunching - there has to be a fear reason to keep on.
Now - why should Anyone be called bad names for being in
doing the work? And for wanting to use their boxes where they
get most out of it? Others may see themselves as "more
morally incleaned - by being "very" intersted in the project" ??
But that is not any excuse for keeping on using bad names
on others when not being agree.. ;-)
I would like to see this word put away for good - cause
the only reason its used is to get better out oneself. It
doesnt work. ;-)

Sorry for posting "off topic".

---

@AriZonaMoon: Only 4 words for you: You don't get it.

For me "credit whores" are not the people accumulating more/much credit. For me cw are people asking for more credit than justified or people who moan if a unfair credit system is corrected.

I e.g. got for one host (WinXP32 AthlonXP 2800) the following credit for a single HD3850:
Completed and validated 15,615.52 273.38 15,719.53
Completed and validated 19,393.97 299.16 19,523.15
Completed and validated 16,514.00 266.19 16,596.65

This is about 1 Cr/s. This is ridiculously high for this card.

Another of my hosts (Vista64 Phenom II 955) got the following credit for a HD5870 and a HD5870:
Completed and validated 837.84 109.70 9,339.50
Completed and validated 829.16 178.01 9,261.85
Completed and validated 923.14 3.62 10,272.77

This is about 11 Cr/s. This is also too high for those 2 cards combined.

@AriZonaMoon: Only 4 words for you: You don't get it.

For me "credit whores" are not the people accumulating more/much credit. For me cw are people asking for more credit than justified or people who moan if a unfair credit system is corrected.

Fixing the variable credits for uneven amounts of work done is the point you appear to be making, but the thread moved across several issues.

One: The project looked at doing something to auto adjust, but that didn't work well, so they went to fixed credits. That annoyed the greedy because they thought they had found a credit bonnanza. No doubt they will go back to running one project (as any secondary project doesn't pay enough/as much).

Two: Most projects have people that whine about credits. it's largely pointless and irritating

Three: There is a degree of petty name-calling and antagonism generated that is not necessary and that crops up in various places in Boinc. I see it mainly between users and admins, and also between users. People crunch for a variety of reasons, and some just for the scores.

Cross-project credit parity is impossible. There is no such thing as "fair" credit value. As long as the credit within a project remains consistent, it's all good.

---

Reno, NV
Team SETI.USA