My suggestion is Q6600 and running Rosetta with that...
Why Rosetta for cpu...
1) Rosetta is making a contribution to the science from my unknowledgeable point of view, on par with FAH.
Could be, only time will reveal whether this is so, or not. Stanford is tackling a more fundamental problem than is Rosetta. As a result the problem may be more difficult for Stanford.
2) They don't have GPU's and so only make do with 80 teraflops. FAH has maybe 400 TFlops CPU power OR MORE. I'm suggesting this from strictly scientific point of view. If you're only interested in visibility for TLM, then dual cores will do.
Poser, both efforts are worthy. and certainly Stanford is the larger effort.
It is admirable that everyone contributes to Distributed Computing projects.
There is more synergism for the life extension movement by participating with The Longevity Meme team, it helps:
- ImmInst (inspires teamwork and promotes publicity and public awareness)
- The Longevity Meme (advertisement and promotion for one of the best sources of info on the Internet)
- The whole life extension movement (increases public awareness)
- Stanford Scientists & University, and furthers basic science (the last applies to Rosetta as well)
The visibility (publicity) of The Longevity Meme relates strongly to the rank position in the stats pages (there are a few stat sites that are closely watched by thousands of people). For example:
- Stanford Stats and within it: The Longevity Meme Team
- Extreme Overclocking Stats and within it: The Longevity Meme Team
- Kakao Stats and within it: The Longevity Meme Team
- There are others.
Rank position is directly related to points accumulated. The more folders, and the faster computers that the folders have, the higher The Longevity Meme will be ranked.
Some teams have more than 10,000 members, many will be watching as their Rank position may be affected by The Longevity Meme. Largely these folders are unacquainted with Life-Extension, here is an opportunity to introduce them to
The Longevity Meme and to
ImmInst.
Additionally, There are a large numbers of forums dedicated to computers and gaming that are interested in F@H.
With small effort, everyone can contribute and help this movement.
Here we, as members of ImmInst and The Longevity Meme team, have an opportunity to do something that is, in many ways, very positive.
Btw The FAH statistics suck in that they should show PPD for CPU's separately. Then the FAH price could be divided between CPU folders and GPU folders. That would increase the speed of acquiring CPU's and thus the science.
Stanford has publicly stated that both CPU and GPU contributions are important to the F@H effort. They also try to set the points to relate to scientific value(within limits). There are variations away from the standards, such as bonus points awarded for either extra hardware required, such as:
- Large work units requiring extra download/upload capacity
- Large work units requiring more than normal system RAM
- Work units that have tight deadlines (needing to be worked quickly)
- Work units requiring CPUs with SSE2 processing
- Work units requiring GPU processing
GPUs (and PS3s) can actually do more floating point operations (FLOPs) representing more work than a CPU, but GPUs (and PS3s) are awarded accordingly less per work unit because of the inflexibility of their streaming parallel processors. GPUs (and PS3s) can only fold specific work unit types. CPUs can fold all types.Generally one can say that points earned reflect the scientific value to Stanford, regardless of their source.
. Here's one example, along the lines I described above...
$610...About 19-20k PPD.
Thanks for the example folding rig, looks like a good compromise of cost/PPD.
Edited by dnamechanic, 25 November 2008 - 03:40 AM.
