mckmas8808
Legend
At this rate, 1 PetaFLOP is not out of reach. An amazing milestone.
What is one PetaFLOP? Is it 1,024 Teraflops?
At this rate, 1 PetaFLOP is not out of reach. An amazing milestone.
What is one PetaFLOP? Is it 1,024 Teraflops?
I don't see 1Petaflop to be a problem for PS3s at this rate.
Weird form for logic.By the way it is being said on the folding forums that the PS3 client DO have the same 'limited type of WUs' restriction that the GPU client does. So from a $/output perspective, plain old ATI GPUs are still the way to go, as I mentioned earlier in this topic.
Judging by the endless discussion of points per WU, tflops, and WU types, Stanford is not providing a decent metric for "value" of a unit of work. They have already stated that points awarded do not accurately reflect "science" done.
Personally I think they are over their heads with the diversity of users, clients and platforms and are just trying to keep participants tuned in and working without actually being able to feed back to the community enough information for it to decide what the cheapest cruncher-per-dollar actually is. Is it a multi-core rig, an ATI gpu, or a PS3? right now this appears to be impossible to calculate .. not because we aren't given vital info, but because nobody really knows..
Weird form for logic.
If I didn't know better I'd say you were grasping blindly for something.
Weird english!Weird form for logic.
If I didn't know better I'd say you were grasping blindly for something.
If there was such a confirmation I bet that Onlooker1 is the kind of person who would have slammed it into our faces (just a feeling).I'm still trying to find where anyone who actually knows the technical details of the PS3 client confirms limited WUs there.
Weird english!
It's not beyiond criticism of course but it has to be objective criticism; criticism made with a degree of understanding of what this project can actually hope to accomplish. Otherwise criticism just turns into babble and mindless monkey poo-flinging.The fewer people who won't even consider any skeptical position on it, who consider it untouchable, beyond criticism because it mentions "cancer" and "cure", the more sure I become.
Not to sound like some biased fanboy but letting Xenon do folding might not be very good for the PR.I dfind it pretty amazing PS3 f @ h performance crushes all other clients only a day or so after the client was released.
Now if only MS would make a client too so my 360 could addi ts power to the curing of cancer..
..If I could stand the constant fan noise that is.
Peace.
I'm still confused about the claim that there's kinds of folding which CELL can't performe, makes no sense to me.
Reminds me of the ol' "SPEs can't do AI, physics and so on" claim.
Will someone please care to enlighten me?
Thanks, that makes sense.If the accusation holds any water at all, it would have to be over a system memory limitation not the Cell's computational ability.
Even on the desktop versions of FAH there is an advanced option to not accept the assignment of "extra large" Work Units. The memory foot print on some of them (but not the majority as far as I can gather) can be very large. So on lower end systems you can choose to reject them even on the PC version.
I think they could easily tap Xenos to do it, and perhaps use Xenon to do higher-precision work that Cell & GPUs don't do.Not to sound like some biased fanboy but letting Xenon do folding might not be very good for the PR.