Folding@home points system UNFAIR!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

imzjustplayin

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,171
(Me)
http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?s=&u=176615
03.11, 9pm 137 1


(Folder who is clearly using the SMP client of F@H)
http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?s=&u=304368

03.12, 3pm 1,760 1

Furthermore, this picture should make this problem much more clear.
foldingbullshitvb6.png
 
We already know there is a point disparity, but there's nothing anyone can do about it. BTW, wasn't your other thread locked?

 
Couple of things to point out here which I think are fundamentally important and it does makes a difference here.

1) The projects they're running are different thus their benchmark for the project is formulated differently.
2) Look at the PPD - nothing wrong there if you multi it by four and then you will have a comparable score (supposedly) but that is not the case because the points given for the SMP Clients and the Regular Clients are formulated differently.
3) SMP Clients are given a bonus points (This may change at any given time at Stanford's discretion)
4) SMP Clients does not equals to 4 cores running four regular clients. They are not the same.

What about the points are you feeling that's not fair? So far you have not explained yourself but to stand here and point at other member saying "NO FAIR" without really backing up your explanation.

If you don't really like the way points are formulated, then you are folding for the wrong reason. I'm sorry to say but please at least be more rational and ask something rather than just point at points and whine. Ask good questions, take the time to read the FAH's FAQs...

For instance, a PS3 which does a whole lot of computing power only gets about 900 PPD, you don't see us go up in arms... WE are doing this because it's the right and good thing to do. Get that through your thick skull.

 
Well said, Jon855. I'd also like to add: why is someone not on this team coming here to rant? We love to help everyone and anyone with valid issues affecting their performance in order to maximize their potential, but launching futile grievances with Stanford's methodology only accomplishes the festering of divisiveness across the community.
 
Jon855 said:
Couple of things to point out here which I think are fundamentally important and it does makes a difference here.

1) The projects they're running are different thus their benchmark for the project is formulated differently.
2) Look at the PPD - nothing wrong there if you multi it by four and then you will have a comparable score (supposedly) but that is not the case because the points given for the SMP Clients and the Regular Clients are formulated differently.
3) SMP Clients are given a bonus points (This may change at any given time at Stanford's discretion)
4) SMP Clients does not equals to 4 cores running four regular clients. They are not the same.

What about the points are you feeling that's not fair? So far you have not explained yourself but to stand here and point at other member saying "NO FAIR" without really backing up your explanation.

If you don't really like the way points are formulated, then you are folding for the wrong reason. I'm sorry to say but please at least be more rational and ask something rather than just point at points and whine. Ask good questions, take the time to read the FAH's FAQs...

For instance, a PS3 which does a whole lot of computing power only gets about 900 PPD, you don't see us go up in arms... WE are doing this because it's the right and good thing to do. Get that through your thick skull.

Click to expand...
You're mistaken, the points per day are PER CORE. I know, this is easily messed up but you have to understand that it's PER CORE, not per project. You get 1700points for running the project, if you complete the project in one day on ONE processor, it'd be 1700PPD, PER CORE. If you run the project on two processors and complete it in one day, it'd be 850PPD, PER CORE. If you run the project on 4 processors (which I believe isn't recommended anyways) and complete it in one day, it'd be 425PPD, PER CORE. You take the score of the project (how much the project is worth) and you divide it by how many processors are working on it, that gives you the PPD.
 
APOLLO said:
We already know there is a point disparity, but there's nothing anyone can do about it. BTW, wasn't your other thread locked?

Click to expand...
A point disparity of 25-50 points I'm not going to whine because that's how it has always been but to have a point disparity of this much is completely unfair and out of the question.
 
Perhaps you should take your complaints to the Stanford forums where they might be better addressed. We do not control the points system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top