# Simple WCG PPD Estimator



## [Ion] (Dec 21, 2009)

I just wrote a simple program that will estimate your WCG PPD.  Rather than having to ask "What do you think my CPU will do" you can now estimate it for yourself! 







CPU support list for the most recent version; if you're looking for something older look at the hidden material below:

First Gen Intel Core (Nehalem)
Second Gen Intel Core (Sandy Bridge)
Third Gen Intel Core (Ivy Bridge)
Fourth Gen Intel Core (Haswell)
AMD Phenom II
First Gen AMD FX (Bulldozer)
Second Gen AMD FX (Piledriver)

Multi-socket systems are implicitly supported; just enter the total number of cores present across all CPUs.

To use the latest version of the WCG PPD Estimator, download the zip file and extract; then run the *ppdEstimator.bat* file.  This estimator requires Java to be installed on your computer.  While this is perhaps sub-optimal, it means that it will be much easier for me to release a Linux or OS X version of it.  I'll try to work on those.

*Disclaimer:* All estimates given *are estimates*, actual results will be different.  PPD will vary by as much as 50% between two consecutive days due to the nature of the WCG validation process.

The most current version of the Estimator is the *Estimator2014.zip file attached to this post*.


Planned Features

Linux Support: both for the Estimator and for estimating the PPD of systems running Linux
Support for running at less than 100% load

If you have suggestions for what I could or should do better, please don't hesitate to offer them!


OLD MATERIAL, NOT USEFUL except for reference:


Spoiler



I just wrote a simple program that will estimate your WCG PPD for the following CPUs:
Core 2 Duo (Conroe)
Core 2 Quad (Kentsfield)
Core 2 Duo (Wolfdale)
Core 2 Quad (Yorkfield)
Core i3/Core i5 (Clarkdale)
Core i5 (Lynnfield)
Core i7 (quad-core)
Core i7 (hex-core)
Athlon 64X2/Athlon X2
Phenom I X3
Phenom I X4
Athlon II X2
Athlon II X3
Athlon II X4
Phenom II X2
Phenom II X3
Phenom II X4
Phenom II X6
**New with V. 0.5.9b: PPD Estimates for Core i3/i5, Athlon II and Phenom II X6*

Currently there is no support for Core i5/Core i7 and older Athlon 64/Athlon 64x2 CPUs, if I can get PPD number for those CPUs I will include an estimator for them.  PPD estimates for the Phenom I CPUs are probably not nearly as accurate as those of the other CPUs, I had no actual number to base them off of so I just looked at other benchmarks comparing Phenom I and Core 2.  PPD estimations are given as credits reported by the WCG website and as points reported by BOINC, BOINCstats, and Free-DC


I wrote this program in C++ on Windows 7 x64, but I have also tested it on Windows 7 x32 and Windows XP x32, and encountered no errors.  If you do have issues, please tell me so I can resolve them.  Source code may be available at some point in the future.

*EDIT:* I've updated the program and it now runs on systems without VS2008/VS2010, if the first version didn't work please try this version.

*EDIT 10/25/10*:  Two new versions are out with support for new CPUs.  I'm sorry it's taken so long, but Athlon II, Phenom II X6, and the Core i3/Core i5 CPUs are now supported.

'WCG PPD Estimator.exe' is my first-generation C-based text-only version, 'Estimator_GUI.exe' is FordGT90Concept's GUI version.  WCGPPDEstimator_2013.zip contains the newest addition of the PPD estimator and the .bat file to run it.






Linux support is coming at some point, but no ETA

*EDIT AGAIN! (14 June 13)*
I'm collecting more data and will be releasing a version with support for SB/IVB & AMD FX before too long!  Haswell too, if I can get the numbers for it 

*EDIT 23 June 2013*
This latest update is _way, way_ overdue, and for that I sincerely apologize.  However, I finally have a current-gen estimator for Intel Sandy & Ivy Bridge and AMD FX (1st & Second Generation) and the Trinity/Richland APUs.


----------



## stanhemi (Dec 21, 2009)

windows 7 x64


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 21, 2009)

stanhemi said:


> windows 7 x64
> http://img.techpowerup.org/091221/Capturerrr.jpg



got same error on my laptop. vista X32


----------



## BraveSoul (Dec 21, 2009)

windows 7 64
same error    ,, this is good idea becoming real


----------



## Kreij (Dec 21, 2009)

Those getting the error need this


----------



## [Ion] (Dec 21, 2009)

Kreij said:


> Those getting the error need this



Thanks, I've added that to the OP


----------



## BraveSoul (Dec 21, 2009)

Kreij said:


> Those getting the error need this


im assuming restart is required....still no go


----------



## stanhemi (Dec 21, 2009)

i install Microsoft Visual C++ 2008 Redistributable Package (x86) restart my pc and still the same error


----------



## Kreij (Dec 21, 2009)

Hmmm ... Try this one. It's SP1 of the redistrabutable.

Strange, even without SP1 it should have stopped the s-b-s errors.


----------



## stanhemi (Dec 21, 2009)

Kreij said:


> Hmmm ... Try this one. It's SP1 of the redistrabutable.
> 
> Strange, even without SP1 it should have stopped the s-b-s errors.



no still don't work  (and  don't work on my other pc vista 32bit and xp 32bit)


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Dec 21, 2009)

It works with my laptop.
I also have VS 08 installed.


----------



## Kreij (Dec 21, 2009)

It works here on my XP (32 bit), but I have VS 2008 installed also.
I believe an assembly is missing on the machines that are getting the errors, but the 2008 redist should have fixed that.

Can't test it at home either as I have VS 2008 installed there too.

@ion : I you can't figure it out post the source and I'll take a look at it. No guarantees however.


----------



## [Ion] (Dec 21, 2009)

OK, I have VS 2008 on all of the three computers I tried it on, so I didn't think to try it on one without VS 2008.

@Kreij: YGPM regarding source code
My dad's a programmer, I'll get him to look at it if Kreij can't help


----------



## Kreij (Dec 21, 2009)

Ion, try this.

Go into your project->properties.
Under manifest Tool, go to Input and Output
Set Embed Manifest to No.
Recompile and put executable here again for them to try.


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 22, 2009)

Great idea ION!  I'm dl'n it now, and will install it on my laptop with "Win 7 x32".


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 22, 2009)

Same error on "Win 7 x32".


----------



## Kreij (Dec 22, 2009)

From what I can tell, VS is embedding an assembly declaration in the manifest that's wrong.
I am not sure if stopping the embedded manifest will work or if it will throw another errror.
You guys will have to help on this one as ION and I have VS on all our machines (which don't throw the error).

Bear with us, between ION, his dad and me we should be able to figure it out.
It's almost always something simple. Finding the problem, however, is not always so simple. DOH !!!


----------



## [Ion] (Dec 22, 2009)

Kreij, I just tried what you said, and it gave the same error on a spare WinXP system (parents).  Any other ideas? (If not, I'll ask my dad tomorrow)


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 22, 2009)

I'll try on my main rig later. I have VS 2008 on it. I'll post back later.


----------



## [Ion] (Dec 22, 2009)

Mindweaver said:


> I'll try on my main rig later. I have VS 2008 on it. I'll post back later.



Thanks! 
It seems to run fine on all systems with VS2008, but it fails on all of the others :shadedshu


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 22, 2009)

No problem bro! I'm working on a few crystal reports right now.. but give me about an hour and i'll test it out and post back.


----------



## Kreij (Dec 22, 2009)

Boy ... it seems to be a DLL or version of a DLL that VS loads, but a normal install does not.

There is a tool that ships with Vista called sxstrace.exe (command line) that helps with these problems. Look here

@Mindweaver : What version of CR are you writing in? Have to do them all of the time myself. lol
Currently writing another C# app while trying to help here.


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 22, 2009)

I'm writing them for MAS 500 7.05, and for them to be compatible i'm using cr 10. I have cr 8,9,10 and 11. I'm thinking about getting 2008, but later down the road.

Edit: This year hasn't been that great.. So, they have cut my budget big time!...


----------



## Kreij (Dec 22, 2009)

@Mindweaver : You have a budget? Lucky dog. I'm using 9 & 11 at the moment for our ERP reports.

@ ION : We aren't hijacking your thread, honest !! Just trying to stay awake by doing 10 things at once.
That being said, I am calling it a night. Spent all day coding and troubleshooting network and system problems that were mostly caused between the chair and keyboard if you know what I mean. 

I'll be back about 7AM CST.  Have a good evening all.


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 22, 2009)

Yepper, works fine on my main rig with vs 2008. I did notice one thing. It errors out if you answer your MHz with XXXX.X but works fine with XXXX. So, no decimals for anyone wanting to squeeze out everything...lol  Looks good ION! No green text?...


----------



## [Ion] (Dec 22, 2009)

Mindweaver said:


> Yepper, works fine on my main rig with vs 2008. I did notice one thing. It errors out if you answer your MHz with XXXX.X but works fine with XXXX. So, no decimals for anyone wanting to squeeze out everything...lol  Looks good ION! No green text?...



I set the variable that holds the CPU speed to be an integer, so no decimals for you 
I would set the text to green, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet 
The last programming class I did was last spring, I haven't done anything since then so I just wrote the program based on what I remembered


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 22, 2009)

No go for me here


----------



## HammerON (Dec 22, 2009)

Thanks guys for trying to figure this out


----------



## [Ion] (Dec 22, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> No go for me here



Same issue as everyone else, or a different problem?
If it's all the same problem that's a lot easier to (try) to fix than multiple different problems


----------



## Chicken Patty (Dec 22, 2009)

[Ion] said:


> Same issue as everyone else, or a different problem?
> If it's all the same problem that's a lot easier to (try) to fix than multiple different problems


----------



## [Ion] (Jan 5, 2010)

Well, at last it is fixed! 
I re-compiled it with a different compiler, and now it works on systems without Visual Studio!
I'll upload the new version to the OP in a few minutes


----------



## Mindweaver (Jan 5, 2010)

Good job! I knew you would!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 8, 2010)

Hey ION,

I tried this now and it works great bro, thanks a ton for this nifty little app


----------



## [Ion] (Jan 8, 2010)

Chicken Patty said:


> Hey ION,
> 
> I tried this now and it works great bro, thanks a ton for this nifty little app



Thanks, glad I got the problems resolved.
I need to change around the way it estimates, it gives an estimation of ~700 PPD for my laptop, which, even though it isn't on all of the time, is getting ~800, so something is going to have to be done.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 8, 2010)

[Ion] said:


> Thanks, glad I got the problems resolved.
> I need to change around the way it estimates, it gives an estimation of ~700 PPD for my laptop, which, even though it isn't on all of the time, is getting ~800, so something is going to have to be done.



It takes time to get it right.  Afterall, it's a "estimator"


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 11, 2010)

bump (I'm going to try and update this with more accurate values later tonight)


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 25, 2010)

So a redesign is currently underway, I'm going to include an estimation for the Core i7 as well as C2 and A1/PH1/A2/PH2.  I should have the new version out within 24 hours, give-or-take


----------



## ERazer (Feb 25, 2010)

just wanna say GJ, works great for me


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 25, 2010)

OP updated with V .39b ***Support for Core i7***


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Feb 27, 2010)

works great, awesome job...any chance to see Athlon II X2/3/4 support?


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 27, 2010)

AlienIsGOD said:


> works great, awesome job...any chance to see Athlon II X2/3/4 support?



That'll be coming this weekend, I was hoping to integrate it into the app when I added i7 support, but I didn't have time then and I wanted to get the new version out for i7 people.  Until I get out support for Athlon II, just use the corresponding Phenom II, the difference shouldn't be that big


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

Works.  I have VS2008 just so you know.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

Actually wait I have found a glitch.  

So normally let us say I say a word instead of a number.  

Ok error that is fine.  






HOWEVER:  Why don't we mindfuck the program?






Broke it.  Now go fix it!


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 27, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/100226/Capture031.jpg
> 
> Works.  I have VS2008 just so you know.



Excellent, glad to know that it works for you.  Since version .38b, it hasn't required VS2008, the first version did due to some mistakes on my part, but now it (should) work on all XP, Vista, and 7 systems (I've tested it on XP x32, Vista x32, 7 x32, and 7 x64), and it works.

EDIT @ your other post:  I'll look into that in my next release, however, my biggest priority ATM is getting Athlon II support, so it may be longer before I can fix that.  And it is a free program, if you are unhappy with it crashing when you try to fuck it up, well, that sounds like your problem   (although I will try to fix it )


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

[Ion] said:


> Excellent, glad to know that it works for you.  Since version .38b, it hasn't required VS2008, the first version did due to some mistakes on my part, but now it (should) work on all XP, Vista, and 7 systems (I've tested it on XP x32, Vista x32, 7 x32, and 7 x64), and it works.
> 
> EDIT @ your other post:  I'll look into that in my next release, however, my biggest priority ATM is getting Athlon II support, so it may be longer before I can fix that.  And it is a free program, if you are unhappy with it crashing when you try to fuck it up, well, that sounds like your problem   (although I will try to fix it )



I am unsure what you have right now, but the obvious solution is to add in a BOATLOAD of if, else if, statements.  

Once again, show me the code, I will show you a good fix for it


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 27, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> I am unsure what you have right now, but the obvious solution is to add in a BOATLOAD of if, else if, statements.
> 
> Once again, show me the code, I will show you a good fix for it



YGPM with regards to the source code.  Thanks for the (future) help


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

[Ion] said:


> YGPM with regards to the source code.  Thanks for the (future) help



YGPM, but for everyone to know, all that needs to be added is an "else if" statement that checks to see if the user's entry is an integer.  If it is not, then the program will output an error.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

I got permission from [Ion] to go ahead and make this in VB.  SECOND version.  Need tests.  I will have it automatically detect CPU speed and CPU eventually, just a proof of concept.  Please check it against the current program that [Ion] has made.

ATTACHMENT REMOVED SEE NEXT PAGE


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

Design suggestions are greatly appreciated.  

Version 1





Version 2


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

Final post, I am ready for some gaming.  






Screenshots like that make my life easy.

Also, known problems are if you enter in text into my speed box.  I have rectified this, and it will be fixed in the next version.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

OK I lied here is 0.0.4.  0.0.3 failed hard, 0.0.2 was better, 0.0.1 had a bad interface.  Still no MHz detection, but I will do in morning (oh shit it is 2am, I mean I will do LATER TODAY!).  Users should no longer be able to tell me I have an error cause I fixed them all.  Small improvements overall.  [Ion] should be quite happy when he awakes.  

Image improvements as well cut down file size, which is till too big IMO.  The NFO page is sadly the biggest...


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 27, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> OK I lied here is 0.0.4.  0.0.3 failed hard, 0.0.2 was better, 0.0.1 had a bad interface.  Still no MHz detection, but I will do in morning (oh shit it is 2am, I mean I will do LATER TODAY!).  Users should no longer be able to tell me I have an error cause I fixed them all.  Small improvements overall.  [Ion] should be quite happy when he awakes.
> 
> Image improvements as well cut down file size, which is till too big IMO.  The NFO page is sadly the biggest...



Awesome, thanks a ton!  I'll test it out more later and add it to the OP!


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Feb 27, 2010)

Great job guys!!!


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Feb 27, 2010)

How feasible would a load % line fit into that.. i.e. my 24/7 rig is 100% but my gaming rig runs anywhere from 30 - 80%.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

AlienIsGOD said:


> How feasible would a load % line fit into that.. i.e. my 24/7 rig is 100% but my gaming rig runs anywhere from 30 - 80%.



I am unsure of the math.  My guess is to multiply the PPD by .80 for 80% etc, but I am not sure that is how it works entirely.  CPU load is not perfectly linear to being on  % of the time methinks.


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 27, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> I am unsure of the math.  My guess is to multiply the PPD by .80 for 80% etc, but I am not sure that is how it works entirely.  CPU load is not perfectly linear to being on  % of the time methinks.



In BOINC, you can set it to use anywhere from 0 to 100% of the CPU, I think that this is what he is talking about, not how much of the time that it is on.  I can easily do this in my console version, just multiply the PPD by the amount of time that it would be on, however, it would be up to you to add this to the VB version


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

[Ion] said:


> In BOINC, you can set it to use anywhere from 0 to 100% of the CPU, I think that this is what he is talking about, not how much of the time that it is on.  I can easily do this in my console version, just multiply the PPD by the amount of time that it would be on, however, it would be up to you to add this to the VB version



Adding it now.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

Here it is.








Please show me errors guys!  You should always see this window if you try and enter anything but an integer.


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Feb 27, 2010)

you guys are great !!   and yes thats what im talking aboit Ion.  Both my rigs crunch 24/7, but my gaming rig is usually at 30% load and set to do work all the time.


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 27, 2010)

PVT, I discovered a bug.  When you select Phenom II X4 (Deneb), it says "missing or invalid value!" when you hit calculate.  Otherwise, everything else works as it should


----------



## KieX (Feb 27, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Please show me errors guys!  You should always see this window if you try and enter anything but an integer.



Good work! This isn't an integer error, but something I stumbled upon none the less:

Once you calculate the PPD for any processor, selecting a different processor from the drop down menu and pressing the calculate button again updates the estimate (very useful).

There is one exception though, whenever you choose Phenom II X4 and press the calculate button it gives the error message, instead of updating the score. Happens on both my machines.

EDIT: Lol [Ion] discoverd it too (I am soo slow at typing)


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

Yeah I fixed it.  I thought Deneb was X3 in the code for some reason...  it was 2am so...

Also, numerous other improvements added.  Going to cut down program size next revision.


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 27, 2010)

Works great now, thanks!
How do you plan to reduce the size? (I like the NFO, please leave it)

I guess I really need to get some more numbers so that I can get estimates for other types of CPUs (Athlon II primarily, but also Core i5 and Core i3)


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

That picture in the NFO is 41.2kb.  It is a PNG.  I am going to make it a JPG.  Also, if you want anything different in the NFO just PM me.

New version is 38kb.  Total.  I used a JPG image instead.  Looks a little worse, but not much!


----------



## ERazer (Feb 27, 2010)

OMG u guys


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

Ok I will upload this, find anymore errors, I will be proud.  Size is much improved.  Also, auto cpu speed detection will be done when I feel like it.






Image related.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

[Ion] requested an improved error system regarding something like 9000% cpu usage or something.  Here is 0.0.8!


----------



## ERazer (Feb 27, 2010)

woorks great


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 27, 2010)

Excellent, that stops me from selecting over 100% CPU usage.  I'll let you know if I have any more ideas/suggestions


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

Hurr made a mistake.  Fixed:

CPU speed errors now take precedence over other errors.


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 27, 2010)

What CPU speed errors do you speak of?  I have yet to find any? (even when I enter something like 20,000 for the CPU speed)


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 27, 2010)

Clearly I made an error in the speed field, but I made it so the error regarding usage has precedence.


----------



## Delta6326 (Feb 28, 2010)

i don't know if this supposed to happen but this comes up on 90%- 99%


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 28, 2010)

Delta6326 said:


> i don't know if this supposed to happen but this comes up on 90%- 99%
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100228/Capture0082.jpg



Yeah that should not happen...  Let me look into it.

EDIT:  This is a strange case in my error checking.  I will have it fixed ASAP.


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 28, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Yeah that should not happen...  Let me look into it.
> 
> EDIT:  This is a strange case in my error checking.  I will have it fixed ASAP.



Yep, the same thing is happening for me too, it doesn't seem to depend on the CPU type or speed.  But as soon as I enter any CPU usage % between 90 and 99, I get that error.
Still a great app though!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 28, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Also, auto cpu speed detection will be done when I feel like it.


FYI, I spent days trying to figure out the actual clockspeed on my processor using the .NET framework and it wasn't going to happen.  I concluded that, in order to obtain the clockspeed, I would have to buy the source from CPUID in order to pull the correct memory addresses and perform the necessary calculations to get the correct values.

The best I could come up with is grabbing it from the registry:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\DESCRIPTION\System\CentralProcessor

However, on my processor, it reports 1.6 GHz or 2.66 GHz when it should be 2.79 GHz.



Suggestion: Why not make the CPU do mock work that BOINC does, crunch a few numbers, then estimate it over x number of hours at y % CPU usage?  That way, it would be processor indepenedant.   You should have enough information to create a forumla that gets close.

As far as I know, a bunch of double precision multiply and divide should suffice for simulating work.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 28, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> FYI, I spent days trying to figure out the actual clockspeed on my processor using the .NET framework and it wasn't going to happen.  I concluded that, in order to obtain the clockspeed, I would have to buy the source from CPUID in order to pull the correct memory addresses and perform the necessary calculations to get the correct values.
> 
> The best I could come up with is grabbing it from the registry:
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\DESCRIPTION\System\CentralProcessor
> ...



Yeah I tried grabbing it from the registry but it is sadly not even close.  Says my laptop is at 700MHz so I was kinda confused.  The user entering it in manually might be the best choice still.


----------



## [Ion] (Feb 28, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Yeah I tried grabbing it from the registry but it is sadly not even close.  Says my laptop is at 700MHz so I was kinda confused.  The user entering it in manually might be the best choice still.



Well, if it gives bogus values like that, having the user enter it manually probably makes the most sense:  if the program gives values that aren't even close to the real values, then it's not very useful


----------



## mosheen (Feb 28, 2010)

i think user input is better,
user can input different speed and get an idea if overclocking is worth it or not


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 28, 2010)

Ok ends up that my error checking was severely flawed, and nobody ever caught it because nobody put in 9000 MHz as their CPU frequency.  So, to fix this for now, I will take out error checking until I get my homework done.  When I am finished I will find a good solution to the problem.

Edit:  Expect a new version at 6pm.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 28, 2010)

A suggestion on that too:

If the input is invalid, set the usercontrol's BackColor to Pink.  If the input is valid, set it to White.  Do this in the TextChanged event.  For example:

```
Private Sub txtClockSpeed_TextChanged(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As EventArgs) Handles txtClockSpeed.TextChanged
  Try
    Convert.ToUInt16(txtClockSpeed.Text)
    txtClockSpeed.BackColor = Color.White
  Catch
    txtClockSpeed.BackColor = Color.Pink
  End Try
End Sub
```

Prior to actually using the data (your calculate button), make sure all nececessary BackColors are not Pink.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 28, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A suggestion on that too:
> 
> If the input is invalid, set the usercontrol's BackColor to Pink.  If the input is valid, set it to White.  Do this in the TextChanged event.  For example:
> 
> ...



I will try adding this in later.  I have tried to do this:


```
Private Sub Text1_Keypress(KeyAscii As Integer)
Dim str As String

str=".0123456789"
If KeyAscii>26 then
   If Instr(str,chr(KeyAscii))=0 Then
       KeyAscii=0
   End if
End If
End Sub
```

But it would simply not work.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 28, 2010)

Yeah, Try...Catch is much better.  It will throw an exception, and subsequently catch it, if the conversion failed.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Feb 28, 2010)

It said i would producting





Thats what it estimated for my WCG

Nice little program


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 28, 2010)

3volvedcombat said:


> It said i would producting
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100228/Capture062.jpg
> Thats what it estimated for my WCG
> 
> Nice little program



Happy to see it works!  0.1.0 should be flawless, minus error correction which I will add later.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 28, 2010)

Three more suggestions:
1) Autocheck BOINC version according to CPU architecture.  This can be done via:

```
System.Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE")
```
If the result is equal to "x86", it is a 32-bit OS.  If the result is equal to "AMD64", it is a 64-bit OS.

Taking it a step further, find boinc.exe or wcg.exe (not sure on that one) and detect if it is running 32-bit or not.  I'm not certain this is possible though...


2) Auto-clear Speed and Usage when someone clicks in it.  If Text = "MHz", Text = "" on text change, for example.

3) Maybe accept GHz or MHz.  If there is no decimal point, assume MHz.  If there is a decimal point, assume GHz.  I can type up some code for that too if you want it.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 28, 2010)

I was going to have it find boinc.exe or wcg.exe but I realized some people install them in different places.  

I did not put in auto checking for a 32 bit or 64 bit cpu cause some people run 32 bit boinc instead of 64 on their 64 bit system.  

And for the ghz or mhz thing, I think I will stick to mhz only.

Edit:  Regarding processor architecture, I realized that the mobile versions on the C2D were thought of the same as the desktop time.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 28, 2010)

Also, here is the latest version.

EDIT:  FordGT90Concept, you are in the credits.


----------



## Delta6326 (Feb 28, 2010)

i was wandering if you could put in how long it would take to get the number it says like a i7 at 100% is around 22k but how long does it take to do that like in a hour, 22hours 
. you know


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 28, 2010)

It was a lot of work but I finally cracked it:

```
Private Declare Function IsWow64Process Lib "kernel32" (ByVal hProcess As IntPtr, ByRef Wow64Process As Boolean) As Int32
    Public Function IsRunningApp64Bit(ByVal name As String) As Boolean
        If Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE") = "AMD64" Then
            Dim processes As Process() = Process.GetProcessesByName(name)
            If processes.Length > 0 Then
                Dim wow64 As Boolean
                Try
                    Dim ret As Int32 = IsWow64Process(processes(0).Handle, wow64)
                    If ret > 0 Then
                        If wow64 = False Then
                            Return True ' Not emulated (32-bit on 32-bit or 64-bit on 64-bit).
                        Else
                            Return False ' Emulated (32-bit on 64-bit).
                        End If
                    Else
                        Return False ' There was a problem.
                    End If
                Catch
                    Return False ' Problem with getting process info.
                End Try
            Else
                Return False ' Process not found.
            End If
        Else
            Return False ' 32-bit OS.
        End If
    End Function
```
Run it for "boinc" and also "wcg" (I think).  If it returns true for either one of them, check 64-bit.  If it does not, check 32-bit.


Edit: Required imports:

```
Imports System
```


Edit: I only have BOINC (64-bit) installed here so I don't know what the process name for WCG would be.  Just make sure to drop the ".exe" and it should work.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 28, 2010)

Delta6326 said:


> i was wandering if you could put in how long it would take to get the number it says like a i7 at 100% is around 22k but how long does it take to do that like in a hour, 22hours
> . you know



I understand but an unsure if I want to add it in.  The program is after all *PPD* Estimator, the units being in days!


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 28, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It was a lot of work but I finally cracked it:
> 
> ```
> Private Declare Function IsWow64Process Lib "kernel32" (ByVal hProcess As IntPtr, ByRef Wow64Process As Boolean) As Int32
> ...



Ok I have decided to do this:

Maybe one person has this calculator on 1 PC, and then they want to calculate their other PC's and not have to put this program on their computers, then this should work.  

NOW:  I like the program F@HMon.  Ever used it?  It calculates the time a WU will take to complete, PPD, etc.  If we start making this all automated, I will make a program like F@HMon for WCG, HOWEVER:  Is there a program like this already?  If not, I will start to automate all parts of the calculator and start work on WCGMon.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 28, 2010)

F@H just calculates F=ma over and over and over again.  The workload doesn't change so it is easy to estimate how long each individual WU will take given how many calculations there are to perform.  WCG/BOINC, on the other hand, handle a multitude of different kinds of tasks so it isn't easy to accurately estimate how long any given task will take to complete.  Not to mention, WCG/BOINC already do this (see Tasks tab).



By the way, I'd use that code to select the default BOINC type (32-bit or 64-bit).  The user can easily check the other option if it isn't for their computer.


Edit: Another suggestion:

I assume the code to calculate the points isn't very intensive.  As such, you could easily remove the Calculate button and make TextChanged, SelectedIndexChanged, and CheckedChanged all point to the Calculate code.  That way, if everything is valid, it will calculate it as the information becomes available.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 28, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Edit: Another suggestion:
> 
> I assume the code to calculate the points isn't very intensive.  As such, you could easily remove the Calculate button and make TextChanged, SelectedIndexChanged, and CheckedChanged all point to the Calculate code.  That way, if everything is valid, it will calculate it as the information becomes available.



Excellent idea, however, this might be problematic once your previous idea is implemented.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 28, 2010)

The 32-bit/64-bit code?  That should occur only once on startup (in the Form constructor).


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 28, 2010)

Ok as promised:  

0.1.2:  Many fixes.  Please put in original post [Ion].

EDIT:  Also, FordGT90Concept, the button looks so pretty don't make me remove it!  (I am changing code as we speak)
EDIT2:  O wow errors are flipping out, computer crashed...  need to fix my error reporting badly!


----------



## Black Panther (Feb 28, 2010)

Worked fine for me.
Neat work!


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 28, 2010)

Black Panther said:


> Worked fine for me.
> Neat work!



Now I want some screenshots if you don't mind.  Try putting putting non-integers into the field, etc.

EDIT:  Look at what we did over a weekend guys!

Screenshot is of all the versions of the program!






Now, does anyone have an idea for a better UI?


----------



## Black Panther (Feb 28, 2010)

I'm not sure if you were asking for something like this?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 28, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Now, does anyone have an idea for a better UI?


PropertyGrid! XD


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 28, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> PropertyGrid! XD



I have never used this, but I will look into it.

Edit:  After seeing some examples it looks promising.  Looks.  I think it won't look as good however.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 28, 2010)

There's a PropertyGrid on the left of Network Tools 2.

Edit: Yeah, you'd have to have detailed output which would warrant a large expanding section of the GUI for results.


----------



## t77snapshot (Feb 28, 2010)

Wow this is really good idea! ....and it's been around for a couple months, haha where was I. I'm at work right now but when I get home I will try it out! 

Thanks Ion


----------



## [Ion] (Mar 1, 2010)

t77snapshot said:


> Wow this is really good idea! ....and it's been around for a couple months, haha where was I. I'm at work right now but when I get home I will try it out!
> 
> Thanks Ion



Thanks!
Please check out the OP and see the new version that PVTCaboose1337 wrote, it's far cleaner and neater than the original console version that I wrote


----------



## King Wookie (Mar 2, 2010)

Ok. Been crunching now for a while at stock on my i5 750. My settings are 100% cpu usage, with 80% cpu time. This is my main rig, so do spend a fair bit of time surfing the net, with some very light gaming. My host average has now levelled out at about 1380.

Hope this helps.

EDIT: I'm now taking this rig offline to upgrade the cooling, then will look at ocing.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 2, 2010)

King Wookie said:


> Ok. Been crunching now for a while at stock on my i5 750. My settings are 100% cpu usage, with 80% cou time. This is my main rig, so do spend a fair bit of time surfing the net, with some very light gaming. My host average has now levelled out at about 1380.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> EDIT: I'm now taking this rig offline to upgrade the cooling, then will look at ocing.



Good going


----------



## [Ion] (Mar 19, 2010)

Updated with FordGT90Concept's edition that requires no user input!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 19, 2010)

Awesomeness, I gotta try it whenever I get a PC going.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Mar 23, 2010)

FordGT90Concept:  Amazing program!  Totally automated, very nice!

In other news, here is the new version of my program.  

Changes:

-Core i7 Six Core support added
-"Report a bug!" button added
-Multi CPU count now added


----------



## King Wookie (Mar 24, 2010)

Here's a screen shot of my rig averages. Still running stock clock on it. The dip is when I changed cooling.

Hope it helps.


----------



## [Ion] (Mar 24, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> FordGT90Concept:  Amazing program!  Totally automated, very nice!
> 
> In other news, here is the new version of my program.
> 
> ...



Added to OP, thanks!


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Mar 24, 2010)

[Ion], you told me you posted this on XS?  Can I have the link to the thread or whatnot so I can see the feedback?


----------



## [Ion] (Mar 24, 2010)

I didn't post it over there...however, it did get posted  http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=246852


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 25, 2010)

I had an idea: why not just allow users to input a duration?  So I added it, and it is attached.  I also made sure the tab order is good and a note about CPU intensive applications.


----------



## Mindweaver (Mar 25, 2010)

wow, very nice guys!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 25, 2010)

Could I recommend more descriptive names?

Ion's: PPD Console Calculator
PVTCaboose1337's: PPD GUI Calculator
FordGT90Concept's: PPD GUI Benchmark

Drop the WCG because all three do BOINC and WCG.  All three do estimations but achieve it differently: Calculator and Benchmark are more descriptive in how it reaches that conclusion.  GUI/Console tells users how it is operated (distinguishes between Ion's and PVTCaboose1337's).


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Mar 25, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Could I recommend more descriptive names?
> 
> Ion's: PPD Console Calculator
> PVTCaboose1337's: PPD GUI Calculator
> ...



I agree the names are a bit off.  I think estimator is a good name for mine, yours is definitely a benchmark, and Ion's is just out of date and should die off (no offense Ion).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 26, 2010)

Ion's can work without .NET Framework, no?  That's an advantage ours do not share.  He could relatively easily change the code to work on Linux even.


----------



## [Ion] (Mar 26, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Could I recommend more descriptive names?
> 
> Ion's: PPD Console Calculator
> PVTCaboose1337's: PPD GUI Calculator
> ...


Sure, I can totally update the OP for clarification between the versions.



PVTCaboose1337 said:


> I agree the names are a bit off.  I think estimator is a good name for mine, yours is definitely a benchmark, and Ion's is just out of date and should die off (no offense Ion).


I agree, mine is rather out of date, but I'm going to keep it around for the reason FordGT90Concept outlined below (your's and Ford's both require .NET, but mine doesn't).


FordGT90Concept said:


> Ion's can work without .NET Framework, no?  That's an advantage ours do not share.  He could relatively easily change the code to work on Linux even.


I'll try to get it working on Linux as soon as I get a Linux test box up, or maybe I'll just run an Ubuntu VM on my desktop.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 26, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 and I could probably merge ours--one app for calculating and benchmarking.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Mar 27, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> PVTCaboose1337 and I could probably merge ours--one app for calculating and benchmarking.



Yeah we should merge.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Apr 7, 2010)

We are currently in the process of merging the two apps.  FordGT90Concept is merging the code in C#.  This program is now in 3 different languages!

EDIT:  Languages = Programming, not spoken.


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 7, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> We are currently in the process of merging the two apps.  FordGT90Concept is merging the code in C#.  This program is now in 3 different languages!




Sounds good


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 8, 2010)

Updated!


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Apr 8, 2010)

Glad to say that FordGT90Concept, [Ion] and myself have finished the program and made something very good.  

Unfortunately what FordGT90Concept has yet to realize is that he will have to update the calculator everytime [Ion] has a new processor to add.  HAHAHA!  Maybe we will phase out my part of the program soon.  Who knows.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 8, 2010)

Ion could download C#.NET Express and make the change himself. XD

Add a line, increment the build number, compile, and upload. 


@Ion: You can get rid of my original estimator (wcg_estimator_1_1.zip).


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Apr 8, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Ion could download C#.NET Express and make the change himself. XD
> 
> Add a line, increment the build number, compile, and upload.



Yeah [Ion] should do it.  That would take a load off us (us meaning you).


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 8, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Ion could download C#.NET Express and make the change himself. XD
> 
> Add a line, increment the build number, compile, and upload.
> 
> ...


Will do in a minute 


PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Yeah [Ion] should do it.  That would take a load off us (us meaning you).



I have no objection with that, I'll download it now and start learning how the source code works


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Apr 9, 2010)

[Ion] you can remove mine as well if you like, however it is much more refined / pretty than the new combo version, but whatever.  Remove yours too or better yet:  

USE THIS:  

Pretty suite (pun intended) huh?

All our programs, in a rar, might need a readme.

GO HERE:  http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=34801&d=1270768924


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 9, 2010)

I found a pretty major bug in the benchmark portion of Estimator 2.  Ion should get 2.0.1 up soon which fixes it.

The bug: it turns out running the benchmark from Visual Studio is much slower than from Windows.  It should theoretically be much more accurate now (it has to do more work to earn each point making estimates more precise).


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 9, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> [Ion] you can remove mine as well if you like, however it is much more refined / pretty than the new combo version, but whatever.  Remove yours too or better yet:
> 
> USE THIS:
> 
> ...



Pardon my stupid, but all I see is a picture, and the link leads to the same pic?


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Apr 9, 2010)

[Ion] said:


> Pardon my stupid, but all I see is a picture, and the link leads to the same pic?



Click the link that leads to the picture.  Save the picture, rename it as .rar file, open.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 17, 2010)

2.0.1 fixes a major bug with benchmarking (the scores were way off).  The updated version is on the original post.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 22, 2010)

Can someone tell me how accurate the benchmark is compared to the calculator in 2.0.1?  Specifically, on an AMD machine and a Core 2 system.


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 22, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Can someone tell me how accurate the benchmark is compared to the calculator in 2.0.1?  Specifically, on an AMD machine and a Core 2 system.



Sure, just a sec, I'll give it a go on my X4 955 and C2DM P8600


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 22, 2010)

[Ion] said:


> Sure, just a sec, I'll give it a go on my X4 955 and C2DM P8600



So something is _majorly_ off, the estimator component gives an accurate estimate of ~755 PPD for the C2DM, but the benchmark (set with 100 seconds) gives an estimate of over 25 _thousand_ (BOINC)




On the X4 955, the estimator estimates ~2150 PPD, while the benchmark estimates ~6500 PPD (BOINC)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 22, 2010)

That's what I was afraid of. 

I might have to automatically detect the processor and adjust accordingly but in order to "adjust accordingly," I have to make an app that estimates the adjustments and people will have to submit that to me so I can put it in the app.  That might take a long time to do so in the meantime, the Benchmarking is only accurate on Core i7 (maybe Core i5 aswell) processors.


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 22, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's what I was afraid of.
> 
> I might have to automatically detect the processor and adjust accordingly but in order to "adjust accordingly," I have to make an app that estimates the adjustments and people will have to submit that to me so I can put it in the app.  That might take a long time to do so in the meantime, the Benchmarking is only accurate on Core i7 (maybe Core i5 aswell) processors.



Well, if there's any experimental data you need, let me know, I'll see what I can do for you


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 23, 2010)

I found several problems but there are still too many question marks.  The attached app will help me fill them in.  

It takes about 6 minutes to complete so only do it when you have time.  Make sure BOINC/WCG is off before running it or it will invalidate the results.

It will automatically close creating findings.txt in the same directory as the exe when it does.  Open that file up and paste the contents here.


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 23, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I found several problems but there are still too many question marks.  The attached app will help me fill them in.
> 
> It takes about 6 minutes to complete so only do it when you have time.  Make sure BOINC/WCG is off before running it or it will invalidate the results.
> 
> It will automatically close creating findings.txt in the same directory as the exe when it does.  Open that file up and paste the contents here.



I'll do this after school today on the C2DM and Phenom II.  LMK if you need anything else


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 12, 2010)

This is long overdue, but if I have enough time this weekend, I'm going to update things with support for all Athlon II models, the Phenom II X6, and the Core i3/i5 Clarkdale...I might also include preliminary support for the i5 (Lynnfield)...unfortunately, I have only limited data to base that off of


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 19, 2010)

Since the benchmark never got fixed (might never be fix-able), maybe I should remove it and just leave the calculator.


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 19, 2010)

That sounds good...your choice 

If I provide you with the 'numbers' for the new CPUs, could you update it?  I don't have Visual Studio or anything installed


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 25, 2010)

What is this?  A new version?  Yep 

Now with support for the following CPUs:

Intel Core 2 Duo (Conroe)
Intel Core 2 Duo (Wolfdale)
Intel Core 2 Quad (Kentsfield)
Intel Core 2 Quad (Yorkfield)
Intel Core i3/i5 (Clarkdale)
Intel Core i5 (Lynnfield)
Intel Core i7 (quad-core, all types)
Intel Core i7 (hex-core)

AMD Athlon 64X2/Athlon X2
AMD Phenom I X3
AMD Phenom I X4
AMD Athlon II X2
AMD Athlon II X3
AMD Athlon II X4
AMD Phenom II X2
AMD Phenom II X3
AMD Phenom II X4
AMD Phenom II X6


Unfortunately, there are some issues with the latest version as well.  It's back to being console-only, something I don't expect I can change any time soon (as this is all I know how to do).  Also, it's back to only running on systems with Visual Studio.  This I can fix, assuming I have time later, I'm going to address that issue and re-upload it 

We're now on to version *0.5.9b*, next version will be in the .6.x range.

Any new feature requests for me to start working on?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2010)

ION

I'm getting this when I try to open it:


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 25, 2010)

[Ion] said:


> That sounds good...your choice
> 
> If I provide you with the 'numbers' for the new CPUs, could you update it?  I don't have Visual Studio or anything installed


Yeah, send it in a PM.  I'll get it updated when I can.




Chicken Patty said:


> ION
> 
> I'm getting this when I try to open it:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/101025/Capture230.jpg


Try installing this:
Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable Package (x86)
Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable Package (x64)
Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable Package (ia64)

I would try the x86 version because the application is compiled as x86.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yeah, send it in a PM.  I'll get it updated when I can.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still get the same error


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 25, 2010)

Did you try x64 too (assuming you have Windows 64-bit)?  I'm not sure which it requires and Microsoft really doesn't say which should be installed.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Did you try x64 too (assuming you have Windows 64-bit)?  I'm not sure which it requires and Microsoft really doesn't say which should be installed.



Yep, both!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 25, 2010)

It should be in C:\WINDOWS\System32 and C:\WINDOWS\SysWOW64

Installing the redists should have fixed it.  Maybe try restarting?


@Ion: This might help fix the error developer-side (statically link the DLL):
http://rhyous.com/2010/09/16/avoiding-the-msvcr100-dll-or-msvcr100d-dll/


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It should be in C:\WINDOWS\System32 and C:\WINDOWS\SysWOW64
> 
> Installing the redists should have fixed it.  Maybe try restarting?
> 
> ...



Just restarted, I even went in and deleted all the other versions and just freshly installed the 2010 version, x64.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 25, 2010)

You verified they are there?

If so, Ion is going to have to try statically linking it.  No idea why installing the redist wouldn't fix it.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2010)

That particular file it says it's missing is not in the folder you mentioned above.  At least I don't find it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 25, 2010)

Do you by any chance have msvcr100.dll in those same directories?  msvcr100d.dll is the debugging version which only comptuers with Visual Studio would have (and mine does):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/abx4dbyh.aspx

That would explain why those with visual studio can run it and those without cannot.  Ion needs to compile it without debugging symbols (use /MD instead of /MDd).


Edit: The GUI version without Benchmark is ready to go--just need new processor data.  I also made it auto-fill the processor speed from the the registry.


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 25, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It should be in C:\WINDOWS\System32 and C:\WINDOWS\SysWOW64
> 
> Installing the redists should have fixed it.  Maybe try restarting?
> 
> ...


I'll see what I can do....the last time I had an issue where it wouldn't run without VS, I just compiled it with GCC instead....but that's not working this time 


FordGT90Concept said:


> Do you by any chance have msvcr100.dll in those same directories?  msvcr100d.dll is the debugging version which only comptuers with Visual Studio would have (and mine does):
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/abx4dbyh.aspx
> 
> That would explain why those with visual studio can run it and those without cannot.  Ion needs to compile it without debugging symbols (use /MD instead of /MDd).



How would I do that?  I'm just doing Debug->Start without Debugging from VS2010


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Do you by any chance have msvcr100.dll in those same directories?  msvcr100d.dll is the debugging version which only comptuers with Visual Studio would have (and mine does):
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/abx4dbyh.aspx
> 
> That would explain why those with visual studio can run it and those without cannot.  Ion needs to compile it without debugging symbols (use /MD instead of /MDd).
> ...



Nope:


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 25, 2010)

[Ion] said:


> How would I do that?  I'm just doing Debug->Start without Debugging from VS2010


In the standard toolbar, there should be a drop down box to select between Release, Debug, and maybe Configuration Manager...  Try changing it to Release.  What type of project is it?  MFC, Win32, or CLR?




Chicken Patty said:


> Nope:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/101025/Capture231.jpg


I don't trust Windows Search.  Hopefully it is there but Windows Search database is out of data.


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 25, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Do you by any chance have msvcr100.dll in those same directories?  msvcr100d.dll is the debugging version which only comptuers with Visual Studio would have (and mine does):
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/abx4dbyh.aspx
> 
> That would explain why those with visual studio can run it and those without cannot.  Ion needs to compile it without debugging symbols (use /MD instead of /MDd).
> ...



C2D (Conroe): 2
C2D (Wolfdale): 2.2
C2Q (Kentsfield): 4
C2Q (Yorkfield): 4.45
Ci3/Ci5 (Clarkdale): 4.1
Ci5 (Lynnfield): 5.9
Ci7 (quad-core): 8.1
Ci7 (hex-core): 12.1
Athlon 64X2 / Athlon X2: 1.7
PhI X3: 2.3
PhI X4: 3.2
AII X2: 2.0
AII X3: 3.0
AII X4: 3.9
PhII X2: 2.1
PhII X3: 3.1
PhII X4: 4.2
PhII X6: 6.7




Thanks again! 


EDIT: 





FordGT90Concept said:


> In the standard toolbar, there should be a drop down box to select between Release, Debug, and maybe Configuration Manager...  Try changing it to Release.  What type of project is it?  MFC, Win32, or CLR?



Win32


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 25, 2010)

I verified that changing it in that drop down box will change which DLL is loaded (msvcr100.dll or msvcr100D.dll).  I would recommend changing it to "Release."  If you want to manually change it, it appears under the Project properties, expand Configuration Properties, Expand C/C++, click on Code Generation.  It is Runtime Library in here.  Multi-threaded Debug DLL (/MDd) is msvcr100D.dll and Multi-threaded DLL (/MD) is msvcr100.dll.  You'll want the latter (/MD).


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 25, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> In the standard toolbar, there should be a drop down box to select between Release, Debug, and maybe Configuration Manager...  Try changing it to Release.  What type of project is it?  MFC, Win32, or CLR?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't trust Windows Search.  Hopefully it is there but Windows Search database is out of data.



I looked for it manually, not there.


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 25, 2010)

WE HAVE LIFTOFF 

Check the version attached to this post, it should work on all WinXP or later systems (tested on my bro's XP system without VS or anything).  It comes at a slight expense of size (~75k vs ~30k) but at least it works


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 25, 2010)

Here you go.  I'll remove it once you got it.

Requires .NET Framework 4.0.


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 25, 2010)

Got it


----------



## KieX (Oct 25, 2010)

Tested it for a little bit, seems solid. Compared it to scores I had/have and looks accurate. Good job 

7285PPD for i7 Hex @ 3.8GHz? Whoa, that make me reconsider making more rigs for upgrading instead.


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 25, 2010)

KieX said:


> Tested it for a little bit, seems solid. Compared it to scores I had/have and looks accurate. Good job
> 
> 7285PPD for i7 Hex @ 3.8GHz? Whoa, that make me reconsider making more rigs for upgrading instead.



That seems reasonable, a hex will do about 50% more than a standard i7 @ any clock speed 


I've updated the OP with the two latest versions, I'll get a Linux version out at some point


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 25, 2010)

I noticed our two versions don't match and I wonder if it has to do with the 64-bit client.  Currently, I have 64-bit as a 1.1 multi and 32-bit as a 1.0 multi.  Is that backwards or something?


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 25, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I noticed our two versions don't match and I wonder if it has to do with the 64-bit client.  Currently, I have 64-bit as a 1.1 multi and 32-bit as a 1.0 multi.  Is that backwards or something?



No....that's right.

I'm going to check over my version later and make sure that I have all of the numbers entered correctly


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2010)

Did you find the problem?  By the way, it was also on Core i7 quad that I noticed it didn't match.  The math for Core i7 quad WCG:

x86: 8.1 * processor speed in megahertz * processor count
x64: 8.1 * processor speed in megahertz * processor count * 1.1


Edit: Ah, I worked backwards from what was in your screenshot:

processor value = 33704.00 / 3830 / 1.1
processor value = 8.0

Is it possible your code is accidentally rounding 8.1 to 8.0?


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 26, 2010)

It might be, I'll check after school


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 26, 2010)

I'm talking w/ a user over @ XS, chances are good that there's going to be a web version of this shortly


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2010)

I could make a web version for you if you got a host for it. XD

The only disadvantage is no auto-detecting clockspeed and OS architecture.


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 26, 2010)

Already have a host 

I have a site under construction at http://infinityfx.co.cc .... if he doesn't come through, I'd love it if you could do so 

No auto-detecting clockspeed & OS is perfectly OK IMO


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 27, 2010)

Looks like PHP.  I can handle PHP. XD


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 27, 2010)

Sorry, what looks like PHP?

He was almost done as of last night, so assuming something didn't go wrong, he'll have it out today


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 27, 2010)

We now have a web version  

Available here 

Many thanks to Jonathan Horne ([XC] Oj101 at XtremeSystems)


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 27, 2010)

Oh wow, that's awesome dude!   thanks to all!


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 27, 2010)

Thanks, I'm very proud of what he's done 

He says there are plans for some changes, including making values 'stick' after a calculation & a slider to select CPU usage


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 27, 2010)

That would be great.  Maybe upon selecting usage, it can give you a estimated TDP?


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 27, 2010)

I'm not so sure how that would work, as TDP isn't linear 

But I'll ask him and see what we can do


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 27, 2010)

Just thought it was a cool idea for those who are concerned about power draw you know.  If not it's totally fine with me.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 27, 2010)

Awesome.  Don't need apps now unless you find yourself without an internet connection.


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 27, 2010)

Chicken Patty said:


> Just thought it was a cool idea for those who are concerned about power draw you know.  If not it's totally fine with me.


While I agree that it would be great, I don't see any way that it could be done 


FordGT90Concept said:


> Awesome.  Don't need apps now unless you find yourself without an internet connection.



I think it'll be useful to have an app, I frequently don't have internet access, so an offline version would still be great


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 27, 2010)

That's fine ION, not an issue.


----------



## KieX (Jan 13, 2011)

I should have the SandyBridge i7 2600K up and running today. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you develop the estimator for that CPU. Think twylith was getting his soon too so at least we can compare to get more accurate numbers.


----------



## [Ion] (Jan 13, 2011)

If you could let it run for a week, and then get me a SS of this page...





....and provide me with your clocks/OS, I'll build a new version with support for the SB i3s and i7s.


----------



## KieX (Jan 13, 2011)

[Ion] said:


> If you could let it run for a week, and then get me a SS of this page...
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110113/wcgpage.png
> ....and provide me with your clocks/OS, I'll build a new version with support for the SB i3s and i7s.



Cool will do. I'll run it as stock for now as I don't have time to play around with it :shadedshu


----------



## [Ion] (Jan 13, 2011)

Honestly, even if you just go and boost up the multi ~5x and leave everything else stock it should be fine


----------



## KieX (Jan 13, 2011)

[Ion] said:


> Honestly, even if you just go and boost up the multi ~5x and leave everything else stock it should be fine



Planning on compiling a PPD/Watt chart, so partly why I'll leave it stock till I get the time.


----------



## [Ion] (Jan 13, 2011)

Ahh, I see.  Well, I'd be very interested in the results, I'd love a 2600k at some point.


----------



## [Ion] (Jan 26, 2011)

New version available!!
Now with support for i7 Sandy Bridge CPUs.​


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 16, 2012)

Wonder if ION will be back to make another update?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 16, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> Wonder if ION will be back to make another update?



Doubt it, he's not even answering my emails anymore.  Looks like we lost him for good.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 16, 2012)

Chicken Patty said:


> Doubt it, he's not even answering my emails anymore.  Looks like we lost him for good.



Awww  So sad! Wished we had the code he used so someone could update it.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 16, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> Awww  So sad! Wished we had the code he used so someone could update it.



Unless someone else is interested in creating their own?


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 16, 2012)

Chicken Patty said:


> Unless someone else is interested in creating their own?



If I had his code, I could try but he knows all the values of the PPD estimating stuff and what each CPU MAY make

*EDIT*

I see forGT made a version, maybe we can get his source code


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 16, 2012)

Where is his version, same thread?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 16, 2012)

I have my source code for it but I don't know how he got those numbers.  The relevant bits:

```
_ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Athlon X2", "", 1.7));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Athlon 64 X2", "", 1.7));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Phenom I X3", "", 2.3));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Phenom I X4", "", 3.2));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Athlon II X2", "", 2));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Athlon II X3", "", 3));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Athlon II X4", "", 3.9));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Phenom II X2", "", 2.1));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Phenom II X3", "", 3.1));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Phenom II X4", "", 4.2));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Phenom II X6", "", 6.7));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core 2 Duo", "Conroe", 2));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core 2 Duo", "Mobile", 2));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core 2 Duo", "Wolfdale", 2.2));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core 2 Quad", "Kentsfield", 4));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core 2 Quad", "Yorkfield", 4.45));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core i3/i5", "Clarkdale", 4.1));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core i5", "Lynnfield", 5.9));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core i7", "Quad-core", 8.1));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core i7", "Hexa-core", 12.1));
```

It is C#.  Send me a PM if you want the source.  I'll throw in the WCG/BOINC Configurator source too (they're in the same solution).


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 16, 2012)

You wanna give this a shot Brandon?

Thanks FORD!


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 16, 2012)

Hmmm I am currently doing C++ not C# , it may not work the same.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 16, 2012)

I can update it if I new what values to add.

C# is like pointerless C/C++.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 16, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I can update it if I new what values to add.
> 
> C# is like pointerless C/C++.



Yea you have to go easy on me, this is only my third week of C++ class LOL, Im learning but picking up pretty quick. It would have been easier to have his code, Is there a way we could decompile his last update?


----------



## KieX (Jan 16, 2012)

Values are based off the formula:

Multi = Points/MHz
(Where points are averaged over a few days).

Then you simply multiply the Multi x MHz. Detract 10% for 32-bit. Divide by 7 for the BOINC points

Give me a few minutes and I can work out the values for:
-i7 Sandybridge
-i7 Sandybridge-E

For the bulldozers, would need to ask mjkmike as I think he's the only one crunching that in our team?

EDIT: Got them!

```
_ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core i7", "SB Quad-core", 9));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core i7", "SB-E Hexa-core", 13.5));
```


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 16, 2012)

Looking through the source, the numbers I posted appear to be for 32-bit.  It times by 1.1 for 64-bit.

It does...

BaseScore = ProcessorValue * ProcessorSpeed * ProcessorCount
WCG = BaseScore * (CpuUsage / 100) 
BOINC = WCG / 7


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 16, 2012)

Ok from what I see here are the values from one of the previous releases

C2D (Conroe): 2
C2D (Wolfdale): 2.2
C2Q (Kentsfield): 4
C2Q (Yorkfield): 4.45
Ci3/Ci5 (Clarkdale): 4.1
Ci5 (Lynnfield): 5.9
Ci7 (quad-core): 8.1
Ci7 (hex-core): 12.1
Athlon 64X2 / Athlon X2: 1.7
PhI X3: 2.3
PhI X4: 3.2
AII X2: 2.0
AII X3: 3.0
AII X4: 3.9
PhII X2: 2.1
PhII X3: 3.1
PhII X4: 4.2
PhII X6: 6.7


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 16, 2012)

KieX said:


> EDIT: Got them!
> 
> ```
> _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core i7", "SB Quad-core", 9));
> ...


Added to my source.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 16, 2012)

I could probably base it off last weeks assignments in class just add a few more details


```
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>

using namespace std;

int main(void)
{
char first [20],
last [20];
double monpay;


cout << "Employee First Name: " << endl;
cin >> first;
cout << "Employee Last Name: " << endl;
cin >> last;
cout << "Monthly Pay: " << endl;
cin >> monpay;


double fed, state, ssmed;

fed = monpay * 0.15;
state = monpay * 0.035;
ssmed = monpay * 0.085;


cout << "Employee: " << first << last << endl
<< "Gross Amount: " << fixed << setprecision(2) << setw(15) << setfill('.') << monpay << "$" << endl
<< "Federal Tax: " << fixed << setprecision(2) << setw(15) << setfill('.') << fed << "$" << endl
<< "State Tax: " << fixed << setprecision(2) << setw(15) << setfill('.') << state << "$" << endl
<< "Social Security and Medicare Tax: " << fixed << setprecision(2) << setw(15) << setfill('.') << ssmed << "$" << endl
<< "Health Insurance: " << fixed << setprecision(2) << setw(15) << setfill('.') << "75$" << endl
<< "Net Pay: " << fixed << setprecision(2) << setw(15) << setfill('.') << monpay - fed - state - ssmed - 75 << "$" << endl;


cout << "Press any key to exit." << endl;
cin.ignore(2);

return 0;
}
```



FordGT90Concept said:


> Added to my source.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are different than what I have, should I change them to that?



From what I tested in his latest one, they are accurate.


----------



## KieX (Jan 16, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Looking through the source, the numbers I posted appear to be for 32-bit.  It times by 1.1 for 64-bit.
> 
> It does...
> 
> ...



Ah, works it out the other way round. So:
SB Quad: ProcessorValue = 9
SB-E Hex: ProcessorValue = 13.5

Using 4.5GHz 2600K as an example on 32bit 100% CPU use:

BaseScore = ProcessorValue * ProcessorSpeed * ProcessorCount
_40500 = 9 * 4500 * 1_
WCG = BaseScore * (CpuUsage / 100)
_40500 = 40500 *1 _
BOINC = WCG / 7
_5786 = 40500 / 7_

Then the 1.1x to get 64bit results.




FordGT90Concept said:


> Added to my source.


I missed a ";" on the last one  just noticed


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 16, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> From what I tested in his latest one, they are accurate.


I double checked and they all match mine...


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 16, 2012)

Cin << Mhz * CPU / 7; 
^ will give you the 32bit points and without the / 7 you get WCG points right?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 16, 2012)

It calculates for WCG (the numbers you gave are for WCG).  BOINC is 7 times less than WCG.


----------



## [XC] Oj101 (Jan 23, 2012)

If anyone would like an update, I am the author of the web based version.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 23, 2012)

[XC] Oj101 said:


> If anyone would like an update, I am the author of the web based version.



What's the link to yours?


----------



## [XC] Oj101 (Jan 24, 2012)

I wrote it specifically for Ion, I never hosted it myself. If you want I'll have a copy up within the next few hours, I must just dig up the source code.


----------



## [XC] Oj101 (Jan 24, 2012)

Found it in my sent items  I've uploaded it to my site.

http://flyingsuicide.net/wcg/index.php


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 24, 2012)

This is the same as the one in the OP correct?  Obviously this being a web based version.


----------



## [XC] Oj101 (Jan 24, 2012)

It's similar, it's the one listed here, I wrote it for the OP.


----------



## Delta6326 (Jan 26, 2012)

Hey awesome program I use it all the time. Was wondering if any one knew how much one of these would give out a day PPD? AMD Opteron 6274 Interlagos 2.2GHz 16MB L3 Cache S... ??


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jan 26, 2012)

F150 might be able to have an idea as he has an AMD Quad CPU setup crunching.  I would say though at least 8000 ppd.


----------



## KieX (Jan 26, 2012)

Delta6326 said:


> Hey awesome program I use it all the time. Was wondering if any one knew how much one of these would give out a day PPD? AMD Opteron 6274 Interlagos 2.2GHz 16MB L3 Cache S... ??



A 4x 6272 cruncher will average 15-17K PPD. That would mean each CPU can do roughly 3.8K-4.3K PPD. 2.1GHz vs 2.2GHz of the 6274 would be a small increase perhaps 4.4K?

Been inactive the last few days, but you can see from the other days what they can do:
http://stats.free-dc.org/stats.php?page=host&proj=bwcg&hostid=1820078


----------



## Delta6326 (Jan 26, 2012)

Ok thanks. I have been looking at a server rack-mount systems.


----------



## KieX (Jan 26, 2012)

Delta6326 said:


> Ok thanks. I have been looking at a server rack-mount systems.



That sounds like a whole lot of fun to be had


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 18, 2012)

And headaches when it breaks. XD


----------



## [Ion] (Jun 24, 2012)

Hey guys, I'm back!  I recognize that my program is...more than a bit out of date.  If I can get people to PM/post values for the new Sandy & Ivy Bridge CPUs & Bulldozer, I'll get things up-to-date!


----------



## mstenholm (Jun 24, 2012)

Welcome back

I noticed that a kpresler (from Sweden  ) re-joined.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 24, 2012)

[Ion] said:


> Hey guys, I'm back!  I recognize that my program is...more than a bit out of date.  If I can get people to PM/post values for the new Sandy & Ivy Bridge CPUs & Bulldozer, I'll get things up-to-date!



Welcome back [Ion]!


----------



## [Ion] (Jun 24, 2012)

mstenholm said:


> Welcome back
> 
> I noticed that a kpresler (from Sweden  ) re-joined.


Still in central NC, but I figure I'll crunch for Sweden for a bit--I'd much rather be there than here 


Mindweaver said:


> Welcome back [Ion]!



Thanks guys!  I miss the place!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 24, 2012)

Would definitely be nice to get this updated


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 24, 2012)

This is what mine currently has:

```
_ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Athlon X2", "", 1.7));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Athlon 64 X2", "", 1.7));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Phenom I X3", "", 2.3));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Phenom I X4", "", 3.2));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Athlon II X2", "", 2));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Athlon II X3", "", 3));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Athlon II X4", "", 3.9));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Phenom II X2", "", 2.1));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Phenom II X3", "", 3.1));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Phenom II X4", "", 4.2));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Phenom II X6", "", 6.7));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core 2 Duo", "Conroe", 2));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core 2 Duo", "Mobile", 2));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core 2 Duo", "Wolfdale", 2.2));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core 2 Quad", "Kentsfield", 4));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core 2 Quad", "Yorkfield", 4.45));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core i3/i5", "Clarkdale", 4.1));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core i5", "Lynnfield", 5.9));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core i7", "Quad-core", 8.1));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core i7", "Hexa-core", 12.1));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core i7", "SB Quad-core", 9));
            _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("Intel", "Core i7", "SB-E Hexa-core", 13.5));
```


----------



## [XC] Oj101 (Jun 24, 2012)

Thanks for the figures, I'll get round to updating mine ( http://www.flyingsuicide.net/wcg/ ) soon.


----------



## [Ion] (Jun 25, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This is what mine currently has:
> 
> ```
> _ProcessorDatabase.Add(new Processor("AMD", "Athlon X2", "", 1.7));
> ...



Awesome, thanks!  I'll get Visual Studio downloaded and re-code this soonish!


----------



## gopal (Jul 25, 2012)

How did you guys do that?
btw, Can you add my P4 also


----------



## [Ion] (Aug 3, 2012)

gopal said:


> How did you guys do that?
> btw, Can you add my P4 also



I've spent time analyzing the points given for a variety of systems for different clock speeds and have come up with the ratios used in the program 

I'm not going to add a Pentium 4--it's just too old tech at this point.  I'm actually considering splitting the program into a current version for i3/i5/i7 and AMD FX and then a legacy version for everything older--the number of CPUs is just becoming too many to manage at this point.


----------



## [Ion] (Jun 14, 2013)

Alright, this is coming later than I intended, but I'm starting to collect data for an updated version of this estimator.  Expect something before too long with estimations for SB(-e)/IVB(-e) and AMD FX (1st & 2nd gen, including APUs).  I'm going to split it up into two apps; the existing one will be left alone and I'll write a new one just for more modern CPUs.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 14, 2013)

PM the list to me or something and I'll update the database in mine.


----------



## [Ion] (Jun 14, 2013)

KieX said:


> Values are based off the formula:
> 
> Multi = Points/MHz
> (Where points are averaged over a few days).
> ...



My estimates are that those numbers are pretty much spot on!  Thanks!  I'll figure out some IVB numbers from my laptop and 3770k and get up estimates for those.

I'm probably going to code this latest version in Java unless anyone objects bitterly.  I'm more familiar with it, so it will probably take me about half as long 

I'm also going to re-structure things a bit--I'll have the user select CPU type (SB or IVB or FX 1st/2nd gen) and then enter the number of cores--will clean things up a bit.  Output format should be pretty much the same.

Ford, when I have working numbers for the latest CPUs I'll let you know.  I'm waiting on info from Norton vs his FX systems and should have raw numbers before too long (ideally this weekend, but we'll see)


----------



## Norton (Jun 14, 2013)

Here ya go! 



Spoiler:  Norton3 rig (FX-8150@4.0Ghz)



06/14/2013  0:003:17:33:02  18,174  18 
06/13/2013  0:008:05:04:12  38,234  50 
06/12/2013  0:003:09:32:59  15,593  19 
06/11/2013  0:006:20:57:38  29,647  33 
06/10/2013  0:008:06:04:05  36,851  41 
06/09/2013  0:008:01:58:28  33,688  43 
06/08/2013  0:008:03:52:04  34,941  43 
06/07/2013  0:008:08:36:07  33,284  41 
06/06/2013  0:006:23:44:54  28,412  37 
06/05/2013  0:006:17:27:42  27,787  34 
06/04/2013  0:007:11:24:24  29,908  36 
06/03/2013  0:007:14:40:26  30,600  32 
06/02/2013  0:007:07:23:32  28,860  35 
06/01/2013  0:007:11:36:59  30,035  37 
05/31/2013  0:007:07:20:12  29,602  38 
05/30/2013  0:008:00:36:22  32,423  44 
05/29/2013  0:008:18:23:53  36,039  43 
05/28/2013  0:007:19:54:03  33,718  35 
05/27/2013  0:007:17:31:08  30,947  39 
05/26/2013  0:008:15:32:53  33,643  42 
05/25/2013  0:008:02:51:50  31,532  42 
05/24/2013  0:007:14:00:42  29,034  37 
05/23/2013  0:008:18:09:12  34,008  40 
05/22/2013  0:008:08:35:49  33,575  35 
05/21/2013  0:007:03:31:16  27,999  33 
05/20/2013  0:007:15:29:37  30,689  37 
05/19/2013  0:007:08:13:59  28,666  36 
05/18/2013  0:008:09:00:26  33,476  40 
05/17/2013  0:009:04:31:42  37,178  45 
05/16/2013  0:007:09:18:04  29,065  34 
05/15/2013  0:007:17:28:14  33,901  29 
05/14/2013  0:007:23:17:08  31,315  37 
05/13/2013  0:007:17:47:35  30,367  36 
05/12/2013  0:008:17:14:29  35,122  42 
05/11/2013  0:008:15:48:12  36,027  41 
05/10/2013  0:009:12:42:00  42,307  45 
05/09/2013  0:007:08:40:20  34,190  35 
05/08/2013  0:003:20:48:49  36,314  57 
05/07/2013  0:008:14:33:33  447,024  1,036 
05/06/2013  0:009:08:31:28  467,444  1,087 
05/05/2013  0:010:08:11:40  515,939  1,199 
05/04/2013  0:010:20:33:09  528,989  1,209 
05/03/2013  0:009:12:04:25  484,228  1,116 
05/02/2013  0:009:18:49:26  491,748  1,151 
05/01/2013  0:009:11:59:28  475,498  1,091 
04/30/2013  0:009:17:57:36  492,484  1,138 
04/29/2013  0:009:21:03:43  492,317  1,133 
04/28/2013  0:009:23:01:27  490,332  1,142 
04/27/2013  0:010:03:01:05  484,588  1,107 
04/26/2013  0:009:18:40:35  487,106  1,123 
04/25/2013  0:009:13:24:24  480,924  1,105 
04/24/2013  0:009:20:06:11  482,552  1,115 
04/23/2013  0:009:14:59:18  489,784  1,128 
04/22/2013  0:009:19:59:21  483,738  1,117 
04/21/2013  0:010:10:39:18  506,064  1,160 
04/20/2013  0:009:10:21:48  456,577  1,038 
04/19/2013  0:010:09:43:13  501,167  1,147 
04/18/2013  0:010:00:12:44  498,930  1,164 
04/17/2013  0:009:11:17:32  464,633  1,068 
04/16/2013  0:010:02:17:18  507,744  1,165





Spoiler:  Main rig (FX-8350@ 4.0-4.4Ghz)



06/14/2013  0:003:13:56:04  16,406  20 
06/13/2013  0:007:11:40:22  35,057  45 
06/12/2013  0:008:16:43:18  40,521  43 
06/11/2013  0:007:14:10:58  35,629  39 
06/10/2013  0:006:23:05:39  31,997  35 
06/09/2013  0:009:05:18:44  42,632  53 
06/08/2013  0:010:02:25:30  48,028  58 
06/07/2013  0:005:01:03:41  23,988  26 
06/06/2013  0:007:02:08:30  31,618  40 
06/05/2013  0:007:15:09:53  34,079  44 
06/04/2013  0:007:17:04:20  33,704  42 
06/03/2013  0:007:16:33:37  34,961  44 
06/02/2013  0:006:13:14:21  31,725  32 
06/01/2013  0:007:21:56:28  37,386  42 
05/31/2013  0:008:23:25:24  43,079  53 
05/30/2013  0:008:16:23:44  41,093  51 
05/29/2013  0:007:20:01:19  37,757  49 
05/28/2013  0:008:08:49:42  40,475  47 
05/27/2013  0:006:15:23:00  31,489  34 
05/26/2013  0:007:14:19:08  35,310  46 
05/25/2013  0:008:00:16:34  37,489  48 
05/24/2013  0:007:15:56:36  34,549  48 
05/23/2013  0:008:01:25:41  36,435  48 
05/22/2013  0:009:01:15:40  43,254  47 
05/21/2013  0:004:09:47:14  19,835  23 
05/20/2013  0:006:11:26:49  28,806  40 
05/19/2013  0:006:06:31:44  31,133  42 
05/18/2013  0:007:13:25:22  33,912  45 
05/17/2013  0:005:13:49:07  27,248  35 
05/16/2013  0:005:01:28:54  25,849  32 
05/15/2013  0:005:19:03:06  31,735  33 
05/14/2013  0:006:23:34:30  35,887  43 
05/13/2013  0:007:22:45:20  39,362  45 
05/12/2013  0:008:13:38:33  41,848  48 
05/11/2013  0:008:05:56:33  45,265  51 
05/10/2013  0:007:13:48:15  46,202  48 
05/09/2013  0:007:05:53:36  45,823  44 
05/08/2013  0:004:19:53:09  57,299  90 
05/07/2013  0:007:15:31:36  510,860  1,173 
05/06/2013  0:007:03:12:15  464,546  1,061 
05/05/2013  0:007:21:02:22  481,393  1,088 
05/04/2013  0:008:02:32:42  521,529  1,187 
05/03/2013  0:007:08:18:12  497,820  1,135 
05/02/2013  0:006:23:31:06  474,953  1,108 
05/01/2013  0:007:07:17:41  453,702  1,048 
04/30/2013  0:008:02:14:36  497,906  1,128 
04/29/2013  0:007:13:40:29  465,832  1,061 
04/28/2013  0:007:21:23:21  483,547  1,101 
04/27/2013  0:007:13:36:19  457,967  1,051 
04/26/2013  0:007:06:47:01  439,369  997 
04/25/2013  0:007:20:22:56  476,659  1,093 
04/24/2013  0:008:04:17:32  508,305  1,160 
04/23/2013  0:007:15:03:13  475,740  1,091 
04/22/2013  0:007:23:26:48  476,687  1,068 
04/21/2013  0:007:17:42:52  482,105  1,105 
04/20/2013  0:007:22:30:03  495,827  1,142 
04/19/2013  0:007:22:23:47  490,295  1,115 
04/18/2013  0:007:16:43:15  487,361  1,141 
04/17/2013  0:007:15:35:22  475,567  1,087 
04/16/2013  0:007:18:29:35  472,712  1,076





Spoiler:  Junior rig (FX-6200 @4.0Ghz)



06/14/2013  0:001:21:53:54  8,078  8 
06/13/2013  0:004:13:55:03  18,985  16 
06/12/2013  0:004:16:15:09  20,922  18 
06/11/2013  0:000:22:50:30  4,313  5 
06/10/2013  0:000:05:58:05  985  1 
06/09/2013  0:000:03:49:43  690  1 
06/07/2013  0:000:22:39:21  3,438  4 
06/06/2013  0:000:19:25:14  3,445  4 
06/05/2013  0:005:01:04:22  21,185  22 
06/04/2013  0:005:17:33:08  23,414  30 
06/03/2013  0:004:21:30:38  21,122  25 
06/02/2013  0:006:10:59:31  27,279  38 
06/01/2013  0:007:00:25:08  29,394  38 
05/31/2013  0:008:08:48:52  34,924  47 
05/30/2013  0:004:19:10:08  19,614  27 
05/29/2013  0:002:05:56:20  8,510  12 
05/28/2013  0:000:12:09:41  1,984  3 
05/27/2013  0:001:12:14:32  4,432  10 
05/26/2013  0:005:07:18:51  18,765  27 
05/25/2013  0:005:05:39:21  21,185  29 
05/24/2013  0:004:02:24:16  16,334  22 
05/23/2013  0:003:22:58:47  16,085  20 
05/22/2013  0:003:03:05:29  13,081  17 
05/21/2013  0:004:08:29:36  17,948  23 
05/20/2013  0:005:01:42:36  22,003  27 
05/19/2013  0:006:11:29:39  27,292  31 
05/18/2013  0:006:03:49:25  26,984  32 
05/17/2013  0:006:08:17:32  27,390  32 
05/16/2013  0:006:02:45:59  24,916  31 
05/15/2013  0:005:14:03:02  22,447  27 
05/14/2013  0:005:08:30:16  21,388  31 
05/13/2013  0:006:05:29:05  26,839  34 
05/12/2013  0:005:17:47:26  22,634  32 
05/11/2013  0:007:08:22:43  30,387  38 
05/10/2013  0:015:16:20:29  62,771  84 
05/09/2013  0:000:05:28:29  761  1 
05/08/2013  0:002:00:35:52  9,879  17 
05/07/2013  0:004:06:47:41  17,785  25 
05/06/2013  0:001:13:33:22  53,786  159 
05/05/2013  0:005:22:22:17  238,594  583 
05/04/2013  0:006:00:05:30  245,962  610 
05/03/2013  0:007:02:52:59  294,210  759 
05/02/2013  0:008:20:33:04  362,827  923 
05/01/2013  0:005:21:38:59  250,866  599 
04/30/2013  0:006:21:52:53  286,797  722 
04/29/2013  0:004:22:35:20  195,522  496 
04/28/2013  0:006:10:22:47  294,028  725 
04/27/2013  0:002:08:16:02  99,500  238 
04/26/2013  0:001:22:13:51  84,229  195 
04/15/2013  0:000:00:29:18  390  2 
04/14/2013  0:000:03:41:35  6,262  16 
04/13/2013  0:000:02:52:32  4,464  12 
04/12/2013  0:000:07:38:16  11,275  33 
04/11/2013  0:001:06:41:17  43,685  128 
04/10/2013  0:006:13:51:54  256,765  652 
04/09/2013  0:005:22:20:15  240,746  598 
04/08/2013  0:006:08:36:05  251,852  623 
04/07/2013  0:006:15:47:30  258,126  651 
04/06/2013  0:005:20:12:12  230,108  568 
04/05/2013  0:005:19:22:52  228,528  572


----------



## [Ion] (Jun 14, 2013)

Norton said:


> Here ya go!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Awesome, thank you very much!  I'm going to have to carefully dance around the GPU contamination there, but I'll get it working


----------



## Nordic (Jun 16, 2013)

If you need anything from a a10 5800k let me know. I can say I get an average of 2k ppd from it.


----------



## [Ion] (Jun 16, 2013)

james888 said:


> If you need anything from a a10 5800k let me know. I can say I get an average of 2k ppd from it.



Sure, if you want to throw up numbers for it I can use them


----------



## Nordic (Jun 16, 2013)

[Ion] said:


> Sure, if you want to throw up numbers for it I can use them



Give me a few days. The system is not at my house anymore. What would be the best format you would like to see some numbers in? The system it is in is not 24/7 running anymore as it now has someone using it from time to time. I am actually not sure how often it even runs. About two weeks back would be the best numbers to look at though.


----------



## [Ion] (Jun 16, 2013)

james888 said:


> Give me a few days. The system is not at my house anymore. What would be the best format you would like to see some numbers in? The system it is in is not 24/7 running anymore as it now has someone using it from time to time. I am actually not sure how often it even runs. About two weeks back would be the best numbers to look at though.



Like what Norton posted--numbers pulled from Device Statistics on My Grid.  Even if it's used or not on 24/7 I can make logical extrapolations from points & runtime


----------



## Nordic (Jun 16, 2013)

[Ion] said:


> Like what Norton posted--numbers pulled from Device Statistics on My Grid.  Even if it's used or not on 24/7 I can make logical extrapolations from points & runtime



Pardon my ignorance, but what is my grid?

I also have a 2500k but I think there are enough tpu wcg crunchers to provide data on that.


----------



## t_ski (Jun 16, 2013)

It's one of the pages on your WCG account page.  Go here:

https://secure.worldcommunitygrid.org/viewLogin.do

It's one of the links along the top.


----------



## Nordic (Jun 16, 2013)

This kind of information?



Spoiler



Statistics Date		 Total Run Time
(y:d:h:m:s)		Points Generated		 Results Returned
06/16/2013		0:000:05:44:40		966		1
06/15/2013		0:001:03:54:12		4,576		5
06/14/2013		0:000:03:59:59		604		1
06/13/2013		0:001:07:29:40		4,501		8
06/12/2013		0:001:01:01:42		3,799		7
06/11/2013		0:000:05:38:58		827		1
06/10/2013		0:000:04:35:16		684		1
06/09/2013		0:000:13:06:44		2,105		3
06/08/2013		0:002:14:55:39		10,486		13
06/07/2013		0:004:15:37:35		19,191		23
06/06/2013		0:004:14:11:19		18,216		23
06/05/2013		0:003:09:51:51		14,072		15
06/04/2013		0:004:09:39:13		16,953		22
06/03/2013		0:004:10:25:28		17,467		21
06/02/2013		0:003:14:28:47		15,115		19
06/01/2013		0:002:12:39:50		10,358		14
05/31/2013		0:003:15:21:35		15,938		22
05/30/2013		0:001:04:51:24		4,956		8


----------



## [Ion] (Jun 16, 2013)

james888 said:


> This kind of information?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly!  Thanks!


----------



## [Ion] (Jun 23, 2013)

The long overdue update is now released!  Please check it out and let me know what you think! 

If someone can tell me their Haswell results I'll add those as well!


----------



## Nordic (Jun 24, 2013)

This is from my 2500k if you want it. It doesn't have hyper threading and I noticed that the new one had only hyper threading.

It has ranged from 4.4ghz-4.7ghz.



Spoiler



Statistics Date		 Total Run Time
(y:d:h:m:s)		Points Generated		 Results Returned
06/23/2013		0:001:02:20:55		9,806		12
06/22/2013		0:003:23:32:11		35,068		39
06/21/2013		0:001:23:33:37		18,460		20
06/20/2013		0:003:07:54:48		28,599		39
06/19/2013		0:002:08:16:54		20,281		23
06/18/2013		0:004:03:57:03		36,646		48
06/17/2013		0:002:22:27:29		25,545		37
06/16/2013		0:004:00:18:51		36,270		44
06/15/2013		0:003:09:17:44		29,307		35
06/14/2013		0:003:16:00:54		30,597		44
06/13/2013		0:003:04:58:26		28,150		37
06/12/2013		0:003:06:22:03		29,255		42
06/11/2013		0:003:23:58:59		36,095		47
06/10/2013		0:003:07:48:41		29,718		34
06/09/2013		0:002:22:45:37		27,159		36
06/08/2013		0:003:08:57:10		30,885		36
06/07/2013		0:003:11:54:24		31,373		41
06/06/2013		0:003:19:13:54		33,767		38
06/05/2013		0:003:16:41:08		32,551		39
06/04/2013		0:003:06:03:12		29,394		39
06/03/2013		0:002:22:17:42		26,958		39
06/02/2013		0:003:18:48:28		35,059		44
06/01/2013		0:003:17:45:52		33,885		46
05/31/2013		0:003:08:56:58		29,249		41
05/30/2013		0:003:01:55:44		29,197		36
05/29/2013		0:003:15:20:57		34,196		44
05/28/2013		0:004:20:01:19		45,734		55
05/27/2013		0:003:04:24:15		29,405		37
05/26/2013		0:003:04:15:41		28,784		38
05/25/2013		0:003:02:43:24		28,494		37
05/24/2013		0:003:04:30:14		28,838		36
05/23/2013		0:003:13:12:31		32,396		40
05/22/2013		0:002:19:55:17		26,182		35
05/21/2013		0:002:18:28:46		25,699		35
05/20/2013		0:004:06:52:34		40,441		48
05/19/2013		0:003:14:11:57		34,579		38
05/18/2013		0:002:19:44:59		27,853		33
05/17/2013		0:001:23:45:35		18,475		24
05/16/2013		0:002:08:48:26		22,891		30
05/15/2013		0:001:01:02:52		9,993		13
05/14/2013		0:000:10:38:18		4,043		6
05/13/2013		0:000:15:39:30		5,996		9
05/12/2013		0:000:05:06:37		2,117		3
04/13/2013		0:000:01:44:09		4,153		10
04/12/2013		0:000:03:35:35		9,323		21
04/11/2013		0:000:11:43:21		30,871		70
04/10/2013		0:001:21:38:19		119,567		277
04/09/2013		0:001:08:03:07		82,182		186
04/08/2013		0:008:11:19:04		519,490		1,178
04/07/2013		0:010:19:07:43		645,986		1,451
04/06/2013		0:012:16:50:55		785,905		1,765
04/05/2013		0:014:04:34:12		936,397		2,124
04/04/2013		0:005:19:40:37		366,017		817
04/03/2013		0:005:04:38:07		351,338		795
04/02/2013		0:009:18:41:59		665,294		1,538
04/01/2013		0:010:02:23:02		724,749		1,679
03/31/2013		0:010:19:10:07		716,770		1,633
03/30/2013		0:007:01:49:55		518,707		1,217
03/29/2013		0:012:04:46:25		763,638		1,762
03/28/2013		0:007:08:03:20		443,690		985
03/27/2013		0:010:01:20:13		645,692		1,466
03/26/2013		0:011:21:34:15		717,241		1,653
03/25/2013		0:006:02:34:30		346,167		782
03/24/2013		0:007:02:34:14		388,930		886
03/23/2013		0:006:12:42:22		375,502		856
03/22/2013		0:008:00:26:57		459,544		1,048
03/21/2013		0:011:06:54:48		713,778		1,639
03/20/2013		0:003:09:22:41		214,315		498
03/07/2013		0:000:00:38:04		1,305		3
03/06/2013		0:000:02:04:05		4,494		10
03/05/2013		0:000:16:03:40		34,029		76
03/04/2013		0:000:05:26:34		11,046		26
03/03/2013		0:000:12:05:29		25,274		56
03/02/2013		0:001:20:17:00		96,781		223
03/01/2013		0:001:23:25:37		105,412		238
02/28/2013		0:008:03:11:09		412,086		912
02/27/2013		0:009:03:35:31		491,781		1,136
02/26/2013		0:013:01:06:02		692,850		1,585
02/25/2013		0:007:18:20:47		419,548		975
02/24/2013		0:015:00:01:32		818,992		1,884
02/23/2013		0:011:13:16:17		621,054		1,432
02/22/2013		0:010:18:01:59		580,580		1,345
02/21/2013		0:013:07:29:07		708,926		1,642
02/20/2013		0:010:09:23:22		540,777		1,237
02/19/2013		0:012:00:13:38		631,586		1,463
02/18/2013		0:012:08:16:21		660,598		1,530
02/17/2013		0:012:19:43:26		673,129		1,588
02/16/2013		0:014:00:25:10		747,583		1,753
02/15/2013		0:014:20:50:29		788,587		1,816
02/14/2013		0:015:05:33:47		817,692		1,884
02/13/2013		0:015:01:13:27		807,335		1,862
02/12/2013		0:013:16:43:52		753,026		1,792
02/11/2013		0:013:18:40:02		717,510		1,658
02/10/2013		0:019:20:04:02		931,051		2,057
02/09/2013		0:017:00:56:33		793,123		1,739
02/08/2013		0:012:01:49:48		670,861		1,523
02/07/2013		0:013:11:43:30		795,065		1,847
02/06/2013		0:012:19:17:49		712,736		1,635
02/05/2013		0:010:18:06:00		570,401		1,282
02/04/2013		0:008:08:16:53		432,354		969
02/03/2013		0:003:16:57:27		202,031		445
01/27/2013		0:000:00:31:54		1,440		6
01/26/2013		0:000:00:17:58		725		3
01/25/2013		0:000:01:34:23		4,195		16
01/24/2013		0:000:05:43:58		15,340		62
01/23/2013		0:000:19:06:10		45,547		190
01/22/2013		0:000:05:29:26		14,084		49
01/21/2013		0:000:21:05:45		47,484		161
01/20/2013		0:002:00:49:55		129,080		447
01/19/2013		0:003:14:15:53		201,523		750
01/18/2013		0:004:02:00:37		427,521		1,079
01/17/2013		0:006:11:23:09		523,785		1,214
01/16/2013		0:003:14:17:12		194,327		440
01/15/2013		0:006:01:07:52		116,177		267
01/14/2013		0:000:03:35:18		8,223		19
01/13/2013		0:000:04:34:51		10,710		25
01/12/2013		0:000:12:08:00		29,879		66
01/11/2013		0:000:09:19:05		22,018		49
01/10/2013		0:000:17:54:59		40,676		92
01/09/2013		0:002:04:21:13		117,271		266
01/08/2013		0:009:22:43:00		545,443		1,241
01/07/2013		0:015:02:15:21		840,244		1,900
01/06/2013		0:015:22:47:43		954,290		2,091
01/05/2013		0:004:10:15:03		233,524		517
01/04/2013		0:000:06:14:49		10,923		24
12/28/2012		0:000:04:22:28		1,559		2
12/27/2012		0:000:01:46:54		643		1
12/25/2012		0:000:00:21:25		3,464		9
12/24/2012		0:000:08:37:16		3,697		6
12/23/2012		0:000:13:21:35		5,959		7
12/22/2012		0:000:11:03:12		16,083		38
12/21/2012		0:000:19:57:40		14,358		25
12/20/2012		0:000:17:49:39		51,302		117
12/19/2012		0:003:12:38:44		134,855		293
12/18/2012		0:004:01:40:15		249,450		563
12/17/2012		0:003:22:45:30		260,565		587
12/16/2012		0:003:09:36:11		194,088		430
12/15/2012		0:002:06:46:54		161,321		358
12/14/2012		0:004:04:31:46		255,597		552
12/13/2012		0:002:05:29:23		185,853		393
12/12/2012		0:002:18:00:06		70,419		142
12/11/2012		0:002:09:54:57		118,034		254
12/10/2012		0:002:11:04:37		27,736		43
12/09/2012		0:001:23:22:18		14,631		21
12/08/2012		0:000:00:02:31		432		1


----------



## [Ion] (Jun 24, 2013)

james888 said:


> This is from my 2500k if you want it. It doesn't have hyper threading and I noticed that the new one had only hyper threading.
> 
> It has ranged from 4.4ghz-4.7ghz.
> 
> ...



Well, without having the clocks fixed it's going to be hard to do much with that.  Has it been at a steady clock speed for at least a week and a half now?  That's the minimum amount of data I need to do something accurate


----------



## Nordic (Jun 24, 2013)

[Ion] said:


> Well, without having the clocks fixed it's going to be hard to do much with that.  Has it been at a steady clock speed for at least a week and a half now?  That's the minimum amount of data I need to do something accurate



Its about 95% 4.5ghz. For the last two weeks it has been at around 4.4ghz. I say up to 4.7 because there are a few rare oddball weeks where I had it at 4.6ghz or 4.7ghz.


----------



## [Ion] (Jun 24, 2013)

james888 said:


> Its about 95% 4.5ghz. For the last two weeks it has been at around 4.4ghz. I say up to 4.7 because there are a few rare oddball weeks where I had it at 4.6ghz or 4.7ghz.



OK.  I'll see what I can do with it.  If it's been consistently at 4.5GHz for the last two weeks, that's enough data there to do something


----------



## [Ion] (Nov 14, 2014)

Another long-overdue update is in the works.  A new, cleaner version with support for more CPUs is currently being rewritten


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 14, 2014)

I had a thought: maybe could use WinSAT CPU on Windows system to test processor performance and use its result to equate to BOINC performance.  Seeing how it only has encryption and compression tests, I'm not sure how accurate it will be.


----------



## [Ion] (Nov 14, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I had a thought: maybe could use WinSAT CPU on Windows system to test processor performance and use its result to equate to BOINC performance.  Seeing how it only has encryption and compression tests, I'm not sure how accurate it will be.


Well, when I have some free time over Thanksgiving Break I can run WinSAT on a bunch of different systems (I happen to have a few ) and see what the relationship between that score and the WCG PPD is to see if it would be a good predictor


----------



## [Ion] (Nov 15, 2014)

Alright, a new version is uploaded in the OP.  Support for more CPUs (Haswell and non-HT Core i-series) and a cleaner interface.  Let me know what you think! 

One of these days I'll learn how to write a GUI and come up with something that looks nice


----------



## Nordic (Nov 15, 2014)

I seem to have a java problem. Maybe I don't have the most current version. Almost nothing I do uses java anymore.

Edit, it works. I thought I remember reading there was linux support but I don't see anything about it.


----------



## [Ion] (Nov 15, 2014)

james888 said:


> I seem to have a java problem. Maybe I don't have the most current version. Almost nothing I do uses java anymore.


Alright, what's the error you're getting? (screenshot please?)  This was written with Java 1.8 on my laptop, but since it's so basic I'd presume nearly any version of Java would work.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 15, 2014)

I did get it working, edited my post.

I just updated to the latest java. I was apparently on java 7 version 40. I have no upgraded and uninstalled the old version so I can't give you the error.


----------



## [Ion] (Nov 15, 2014)

james888 said:


> I did get it working, edited my post.
> 
> I just updated to the latest java. I was apparently on java 7 version 40. I have no upgraded and uninstalled the old version so I can't give you the error.


Thanks! 
Linux support incoming, just not available yet.


----------



## Doc41 (Nov 18, 2014)

james888 said:


> I seem to have a java problem



 
this one shows up for me currently for both 2013 and 2014 ver. and i have java 7 update 71 however the GUI ver. works


----------



## [Ion] (Nov 18, 2014)

Doc41 said:


> View attachment 60450
> this one shows up for me currently for both 2013 and 2014 ver. and i have java 7 update 71 however the GUI ver. works
> View attachment 60451


That _seems_ to occur when Java is not correctly added to the Windows Path.  Mind trying the steps suggested by Sun here to see if it fixes it?


----------



## Doc41 (Nov 18, 2014)

This "PATH" value they mention already exists but has (nvidia power shell something something)
sorry never mind, i uninstalled java- cleaned the registry and reinstalled latest ver. "8u25" and it worked


----------



## agent00skid (Nov 19, 2014)

Where are my CPUs? :S


----------



## [Ion] (Nov 19, 2014)

agent00skid said:


> Where are my CPUs? :S


What? 
The PhII X3 is the first AMD option (K10) and the APU is Piledriver, right?

Weird stuff like the Celeron Q1900 is too unusual for it to be worth adding.


----------



## agent00skid (Nov 19, 2014)

My laptop is more an Athlon 2 than a Phenom 2, but not crunching. 
The APU is Steamroller, and the small ones do so well. :S Oh well, was just amused that I managed to use 3 different CPUs yet have none in the estimator.


----------



## [Ion] (Nov 19, 2014)

agent00skid said:


> My laptop is more an Athlon 2 than a Phenom 2, but not crunching.
> The APU is Steamroller, and the small ones do so well. :S Oh well, was just amused that I managed to use 3 different CPUs yet have none in the estimator.


Well, an Athlon II is still effectively a Phenom II...the difference between the two is already smaller than the error of the Estimation.
And I think that if you use the Piledriver selection that will estimate things pretty well for the APU.


----------



## Arjai (Dec 6, 2014)

[Ion] said:


> Well, an Athlon II is still effectively a Phenom II...the difference between the two is already smaller than the error of the Estimation.
> And I think that if you use the Piledriver selection that will estimate things pretty well for the APU.


Similarly, a Phenom II is also effectively an Estimation away from a Piledriver.


----------



## Toothless (Dec 7, 2014)

I have this Llano 3420m that I can use, though not quite sure which setting to use if there is such support.


----------



## [Ion] (Dec 7, 2014)

Lightbulbie said:


> I have this Llano 3420m that I can use, though not quite sure which setting to use if there is such support.


That looks to be K10.5 or basically a Phenom II.


----------



## blunt14468 (May 11, 2015)

any chance of adding the g34 chips, I found myself wondering what  quad Opteron 6172 12-Core would pump out tonight ...


----------



## Norton (May 11, 2015)

blunt14468 said:


> any chance of adding the g34 chips, I found myself wondering what  quad Opteron 6172 12-Core would pump out tonight ...



My 4P rig with 6168's will do around *22k ppd*. You should be able to get around 10% higher than that once the rig is spooled up


----------



## brandonwh64 (May 11, 2015)

I just picked up a dual xeon 5520 (Like two I7 920's) with 16GB of ram! I need to get windows server 2012 installed and I will be adding this to my list of crunchers. What kind of PPD do you think it should output?


----------



## Arjai (May 22, 2015)

brandonwh64 said:


> I just picked up a dual xeon 5520 (Like two I7 920's) with 16GB of ram! I need to get windows server 2012 installed and I will be adding this to my list of crunchers. What kind of PPD do you think it should output?


A shit-ton?


----------



## t_ski (May 23, 2015)

brandonwh64 said:


> I just picked up a dual xeon 5520 (Like two I7 920's) with 16GB of ram! I need to get windows server 2012 installed and I will be adding this to my list of crunchers. What kind of PPD do you think it should output?


I'm thinking around 8k.  I had a dual X5650 setup that did 12k PPD, and it was 12 cores total.  Fortunately for you, those chips are 80W, so you can run them both for only slightly more wattage than that i7 920.


----------

