# A comparison of PPD across projects



## [Ion] (Oct 17, 2010)

I thought that it could be interesting to compare the PPD of different WUs on the same computer to see what sort of trends occur.

I'll be comparing WUs on 3 different systems:

Europa: C2D P8600 (2.4ghz, 3MB L2), 2GB DDR3 1066, Ubuntu 10 x64
Ganymede: i7 860 (3.83ghz, 21x182), 2GB DDR3 1456, Win7 Pro x64
Jeong-Seok: Pent4HT (3.0ghz, 1MB L2, Prescott core), 2GB DDR2, WinXP Pro x32

Europa appears to give ~18.33 points per hour of runtime on HCMD2 (based on information currently available) and ~18.08 points per hour of runtime on C4CW





Very close, which I must say I like to see.  HCMD2 gives about 1.4% better PPD than C4CW 

Ganymede appears to give ~21.71 points per hour of runtime on C4CW, and 25.57 points per hour of runtime on HCMD2:




On the i7, HCMD2 gives about 18% better PPD than C4CW

Jeong-Seok appears to be pulling 7.15 points per hour of runtime (yep, about 7, it's that slow ) in HCMD2, and 7.43 points per hour of runtime in C4CW:




On the P4HT, HCMD2 gives about 3.77% worse PPD than C4CW



So what do these results show?  Not much, it would seem.  On my i7, HCMD2 is significantly better, but on the other two systems things are about tied.

I'm going to update this post with more info from different projects once I have it, my goal is to eventually have a comparison between all of the different projects, maybe with a 4th or 5th rig added at some point


----------



## Chicken Patty (Oct 17, 2010)

Good stuff ION, I'll check this in depth when I have some time later tonight.


----------



## [Ion] (Oct 17, 2010)

Sounds good 

Where sufficient data existed, I added up granted points and total hours for at least 10 WUs for a project and machine, and then calculated avg PPD/hr.  The one case I did not do this (due to insufficient data) was HCMD2 on Europa


----------

