I think this is the right thing to do. I also think it is the right time and the right way to do it, before people could invest much in SB-E thinking they would fold bigadv with it.
No doubt PPD numbers will come down across the board, but so far the only team I've seen whining like little girls over the change is EVGA because they are, in fact, whiny little girls. Otherwise, people generally seem to understand the rationale for the change, even though it hurts.
PS: I josh. I <3 u, EVGA!
__________________ Follow my folding, mining & benching shenanigans @dt_oc!
I would have liked 12 cores/threads too, but I have heard on the folding forums that Stanford did not really want HT being counted as real cores in the first place, so maybe thats why they went 16 cores.
It is experimental and a beta program, so really we just need to suck it up and just keep folding for the cure!!
Yes, well it does read 16 cores, not threads... Does anyone else think they might be shooting themselves in the foot with this though? I mean, there will be way less total work actually being done; not thinking about the points perspective, but just in that the WU's will be smaller and less complex. Plus extra time taken to send and receive data when it could be used for folding (admittedly not that much).
I understand the point of bigadv units is that they give point bonuses because they're actually "worth" more from a research data standpoint. And they want less of them coming in?
EDIT: Also, if Stanford has trouble with Intel's hyperthreading accounting for extra threads, I hardly think they should view an AMD Bulldozer module as two cores.
Last edited by mikellini; November 15, 2011 at 04:01 PM.