My GTX460 just finished one of these wu's. Like always it took about 23 and a 1/2 hours. However, the amount of credit awarded is far less than the usual 67.500. Are the credits being recalculated for this type of wu or is it some kind of error? Thanks

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=4687075

me too.

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=2940618
____________
http://www.rechenkraft.net

Should have been 45k x 1.5 = 67.5 since received-sent is (barely) within 24h. Edit: a strange interference occurred with another results. The BOINC thing copied the lower credit of the other result. We'll try to see if a fix is possible for this case.

T

OK.
thx Toni.
____________
http://www.rechenkraft.net

Could someonem please explain to me the 24hr rule and why it justifies an increase in credit? I have received 45000, 56000 and 67500 for various completed "GIANNI" wu's.

The rule is that if you return the result within 24 hours you get a 50% bonus. Why? Well... why not?

Does this 24 hr rule apply to all Long wu's or just the "GIANNI"wu's

My concerns are that if credits are awarded based on an estimate of the amount of flops based on number of iterations, (as far as I am aware all BOINC projects calculate in a similar manner) and we enhance the credits based on a particular time frame to suit the project, which has nothing to do with that, are we "BOINC legal"?
I am not trying to put a fly in the ointment but it may appear to other projects that we are not playing by the rules.

Many thanks
How do I reduce the cache to its minimum

Thank you MarkJ and skgiven for being available at this holiday time it is a pleasure being part of arguablly one of the most worthwhile/best projects within BOINC

My GTX550TI can do the GIANNI WU in just under the 24 hours to qualify for the full bonus. :)

I upgraded my video card recently and saw my daily stats shoot through the roof. Then I realized I was getting the long WU's. I turned GPUgrid off and just ran seti for a day to see what kinda stats I would get. GPUgrid definately seem to give a significant bonus over other projects. I guess my only concern is the cobblestone was meant to be a reflection of work done... giving bonuses kinda skews things a bit. Maybe the who cobblestone thing is broken anyways. If you want such fast return times why not just set short deadlines? Do people care enough about these things that a credit war could start between projects who add bonuses to try and attract people? I just pick interesting projects. Give them similar priorty and let them go.

By my point of wiev; GPUGRID is not in a credit war. Compare to other project (GTX560Ti factory OC 900 MHz)
1. PG PSA tpsieving - theoretical RAC ~ 800 k, 4-6% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
2. DistrRTGen theoretical RAC ~ 500 k (process tammed to realtime resp. -20), 98 % CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
3. PG PPSE Sieving theoretical RAC ~ 250 k (november 2011), 4-6 % CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
4. PG GWC Sieving theoretical RAC ~ 125 k (november 2011), 4-6% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
5. GPUGRID longrun tasks, SwanSync=0, + 50% time bonus <24 hours
-- theoretical RAC max 105 k with NATHAN_CB/TONI_FAAEAC tasks only, 100% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
-- theoretical RAC < 95 k with other longrun tasks, 100% CPU consumption, 86% GPU load
Where can you see the overcrediting of GPUGRID?
Do not compare to Einstein or Seti (apps of both projets runs fine on CC 1.1 GPU, not on CC 1.3+ GPU). To crunch that projects by CC 1.3+ GPU (without using app_info) is not a good idea. From the other side - try to crunch NATHAN_CB or TONI_FAAEAC by a 9600GT (suitable GPU for Seti, Albert & Einstein).....have you tried it? Now you can see overcredited is Seti, Albert & Einstein, as any credit > zero credit.
I did not compare GPUGRID to ATI GPU efficient projects (MW, Collatz, Moo!), as i mean that it would be waste of eletricity power and GPU cycles to crunch these project by nV GPU. Only for info (much cheaper and low power consumption HD 4770)
1. Moo! - theoretical RAC ~ 86 k, 100% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
2. MW - theoretical RAC ~ 68 k, 5% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
3. Collatz - theoretical RAC ~ 65 k, 1% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
1-4. POEM++ ATIOpenCL, using CreditNew that looks like a joke, for near the same run time (about one hour) was granted credit between 2,5 k - 10 k.
By the way - DistrRTgen used the CrediNew for a time, but has been left as unusable for app of the project.

Just had a GIANNI wu completed and returned within 24 hrs but have been cedited with 45000

There seems to be a very large difference in the time taken on the "GIANNI" wu's on the same machine. As low as 17hrs and up to double that. No changes or use on that machine.

Windows 7 Ultimate, i7 920 running @ 3002MHz in an Asus P6T motherboard running a cool GTX 285 (60-65C) in prefer maximum performance mode and 6G memory.
Any ideas as to why there should be such a time range?

Any ideas as to why there should be such a time range?

Hosts should now be showing

Hosts are now showing.

Hosts are now showing.

Thanks for the response but I think it was simply the cards downclocking ... now sorted.

By my point of wiev; GPUGRID is not in a credit war. Compare to other project (GTX560Ti factory OC 900 MHz)
1. PG PSA tpsieving - theoretical RAC ~ 800 k, 4-6% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
2. DistrRTGen theoretical RAC ~ 500 k (process tammed to realtime resp. -20), 98 % CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
3. PG PPSE Sieving theoretical RAC ~ 250 k (november 2011), 4-6 % CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
4. PG GWC Sieving theoretical RAC ~ 125 k (november 2011), 4-6% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
5. GPUGRID longrun tasks, SwanSync=0, + 50% time bonus <24 hours
-- theoretical RAC max 105 k with NATHAN_CB/TONI_FAAEAC tasks only, 100% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
-- theoretical RAC < 95 k with other longrun tasks, 100% CPU consumption, 86% GPU load
Where can you see the overcrediting of GPUGRID?
Do not compare to Einstein or Seti (apps of both projets runs fine on CC 1.1 GPU, not on CC 1.3+ GPU). To crunch that projects by CC 1.3+ GPU (without using app_info) is not a good idea. From the other side - try to crunch NATHAN_CB or TONI_FAAEAC by a 9600GT (suitable GPU for Seti, Albert & Einstein).....have you tried it? Now you can see overcredited is Seti, Albert & Einstein, as any credit > zero credit.
I did not compare GPUGRID to ATI GPU efficient projects (MW, Collatz, Moo!), as i mean that it would be waste of eletricity power and GPU cycles to crunch these project by nV GPU. Only for info (much cheaper and low power consumption HD 4770)
1. Moo! - theoretical RAC ~ 86 k, 100% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
2. MW - theoretical RAC ~ 68 k, 5% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
3. Collatz - theoretical RAC ~ 65 k, 1% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
1-4. POEM++ ATIOpenCL, using CreditNew that looks like a joke, for near the same run time (about one hour) was granted credit between 2,5 k - 10 k.
By the way - DistrRTgen used the CrediNew for a time, but has been left as unusable for app of the project.

Are you referring there to not having any other tasks running on your computer at all apart from running the GpuGrid task?

both normally return 35811points, though I've just noticed a couple of 31500. not sure what that's about.

ah. ok thanks.

Im currently running my 470 at 800 core and I have swan_sync=0 and in boinc manager settings I have set on multiprocessor systems use at most 75%.
I got 3 primegrid pps llravx running and they take all other three cores and usually all long runs hog completely the spare core I give them. Although the task says its running 0.44 cpu + 1.0 gpu.
Cpu is 2500K@4.5Ghz

All tasks of all types and size.