BOINC VS Folding ( CPU VS GPU )

[WuZhao]

I was wondering about: Folding VS BOINC ( GPU VS CPU ) For analysing.
Is there some kind of diagram out there on the net that show performance etc between these programs ?

Would be nice to see the diagram to show things like:
Watt per teraflop
Teraflop per Hour
etc..

[7im]

FLOPS are shown on Clients Stats page linked on the project homepage.

Deeper analysis like PP$ can be found in the various sections of the forum, GPU info in the GPU section, etc.

The GPU FAQ on the home page also discusses relative performance of CPU vs. GPU, and why they don't exactly line up apples to apples because of the different solvent models used. Even when you can match up the FLOPS counts, the comparison is not linear to the representation of the relative science completed by each type of client.

[WuZhao]

I would like to know more about what project that is most beneficial to to run for all the humans.

BOINC VS Folding

With BOINC its possibly to choose from a list what kind or things you want to run
But with folding its only one project to choose from.

But in the end what is most importent to use. not just to make companies rich with new finding,
but to make all the humans "a favor" like in finding a cure etc..

If i must choose ONE program BOINC or Folding, which one should i then use to get the most out of the time spent running it.

[7im]

My recommendation is to find a project that interests you, and with a good support structure, like an active forum, and project staff that is responsive to questions, improvements, etc.

Folding@home is all of those for me, but maybe not for everyone. And Stanford is not here to make any corporation rich, and publishes all of their results publicly, so that anyone can use it. It's for the betterment of all, not just for the betterment of a drug company.

Start here, and you may find your way back to fah after all... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_di ... g_projects

[Tobit]

And Stanford is not here to make any corporation rich, and publishes all of their results publicly, so that anyone can use it. It's for the betterment of all, not just for the betterment of a drug company.

Tell that to EVGA who gives out coupons to encourage people to fold for their team. The more you fold with them, the more EVGA bucks you earn with them.

[bruce]

But in the end what is most importent to use. not just to make companies rich with new finding,
but to make all the humans "a favor" like in finding a cure etc..

I would like to know more about what project that is most beneficial to to run for all the humans.
If i must choose ONE program BOINC or Folding, which one should i then use to get the most out of the time spent running it.

I'm not sure what you expect. If you ask a question like that on a BOINC forum or a Folding forum, you'll only get answers from people who have already made a choice. Of course F@H is the best project.

With BOINC its possibly to choose from a list what kind or things you want to run
But with folding its only one project to choose from.

That's not quite true. F@H consists of hundreds of different projects. Here's a list of the active projects. Not all are independent, of course, but you can see that there are a variety of different researchers studying different problems but using similar methodology. The list of published papers is also an indication of what has already been completed.

[7im]

And Stanford is not here to make any corporation rich, and publishes all of their results publicly, so that anyone can use it. It's for the betterment of all, not just for the betterment of a drug company.

Tell that to EVGA who gives out coupons to encourage people to fold for their team. The more you fold with them, the more EVGA bucks you earn with them.

Corporate sponsorship (of a fah team, not of Stanford) has nothing to do with profiteering from the scienctific output of the project. And if people don't like it, then buy a NV card from a different vendor, or by ATI, or don't buy a GPU at all.

EVGA is actually promoting the fah project through the sponsorhip of their own team. I don't see how giving away EVGA bucks is going to make EVGA any richer. Seems like theyd' be losing money on the deal by giving away money.

And when EVGA gives them a "rebate" on their next card for folding, that's a lot better for fah than EVGA giving away a rebate at NewEgg for no reason at all, other than to sell more GPUs.

I'm not siding with EVGA. I just think we should look at this from all sides (not just from the side of a team rival).

[JimF]

It is surprising to me the bias against commercial use of the data. How else are drugs going to get to market? Are people going to go to Stanford and line up in front of Vijay's office for treatment? Maybe he can give them a video of his latest protein unfolding. And if no company can ever make a profit on the data, the cures will never happen.

I would actually prefer to fold for a profit-making company, and have them pay me for my time and PC expenses. They at least would have an incentive to commercialize it.
I am sure that Stanford will do its best to get the data out, but someone has to pay the bills at some point.

[Tobit]

I'm not siding with EVGA. I just think we should look at this from all sides (not just from the side of a team rival).

No, I hear ya.. and I agree that it brings more people into the "fold" and it is of great benefit to the project at large. I feel the same way with many gimmicky "rewards" programs out there, not just this so, although there is definite team rivalry bias in my post, I will just leave it at that.

[7im]

It is surprising to me the bias against commercial use of the data. How else are drugs going to get to market? Are people going to go to Stanford and line up in front of Vijay's office for treatment? Maybe he can give them a video of his latest protein unfolding. And if no company can ever make a profit on the data, the cures will never happen.

I would actually prefer to fold for a profit-making company, and have them pay me for my time and PC expenses. They at least would have an incentive to commercialize it.
I am sure that Stanford will do its best to get the data out, but someone has to pay the bills at some point.

You might have read the bias slightly incorrectly. There is a bias against projects' whose only goal is to increase the profits of one company, instead of sharing the results with everyone. With fah, we do hope the data can be used commercially to develop cures. But because the data is shared, everyone has a fair shot at making a cure/profit. Not true if only one company gets the data.

And while I would love to get paid for each of the work units I process, I haven't found a project does that yet.

[7im]

I'm not siding with EVGA. I just think we should look at this from all sides (not just from the side of a team rival).

No, I hear ya.. and I agree that it brings more people into the "fold" and it is of great benefit to the project at large. I feel the same way with many gimmicky "rewards" programs out there, not just this so, although there is definite team rivalry bias in my post, I will just leave it at that.

I'm with ya for the most part. I work in the corporate world, so I'd rather not play where there is corporate influence. That's why I like this forum and it's agnostic approach to hardware and it's non-commercial stance on posting.