Just passed the 200WU Landmark

[zakee00]

...And still goin strong with my A64
It's so nice to have SETI running 24/7, even when I play CSS!
How fast are you guys completing WU's? My time says 1:26 total for the current WU I'm on.
Nick

 

[Coquito]

Very nice. Probably helps warm your home a bit. Considering where your from...

 

[ICXRa]

Congrats!
I have no rig that completes them that fast my fasted time is about 2 hours 55 minutes.
Crunch on!

 

[RaySun2Be]

 

[MoFunk]

My AMD 64 (2800) is doing a WU in 2 hours average. What speed is yours?

 

[Zim Hosein]

Congrats zakee00 :beer:

 

[Assimilator1]

Congrats on hitting 200 :beer:

My XPM 2500 @2.53GHz (180FSB) does average AR WUs in 2hrs ,with High AR WUs being done in 1hr 44mins + .For more details look here
That's with v3.03 CLI

Mofunk
Is that a single channel chip with 512k L2 cache? 1.8GHz?

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: Assimilator1
Mofunk
Is that a single channel chip with 512k L2 cache? 1.8GHz?

Yes it is (I think). I have an Epox board that does not have a pci lock evidently so I am not able to push it much.

 

[zakee00]

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Originally posted by: Assimilator1
Mofunk
Is that a single channel chip with 512k L2 cache? 1.8GHz?

Yes it is (I think). I have an Epox board that does not have a pci lock evidently so I am not able to push it much.

my rig is a 3000+ A64 overclocked to 2.655GHz. right now my WU time is 1:46, so i guess it varies between WU's.
thanks for the replies guys, makes me feel special
meh, its pretty cold up here (about 5F), but my igloo is pretty well insulated
Nick

 

[amdxborg]

Woot Congrats zakee00! :beer:

 

[Dalephi]

Congratulations Zakee00!!

 

[aceofspades230]

congrats zakee00!! i usually turn my setidriver off when im playing CS:S with a stock A64 3000 & Asus AV8. It doesn't effect your time at all??

 

[zakee00]

Originally posted by: aceofspades230
congrats zakee00!! i usually turn my setidriver off when im playing CS:S with a stock A64 3000 & Asus AV8. It doesn't effect your time at all??

by time do you mean WU time? well, yeah. i run SETI Driver at low cpu priory, so CSS has a higher priority...seti gets the leftover CPU cycles that way, it dosnt interfere with CSS's fps minus a little bit for the overhead probably. So ovbiously seti will run slower because it dosn't get the whole processor to crunch with.
Nick
PS: at 209 WU now
EDIT: thx Assimilator1 for your sig, i stole it

 

[JWMiddleton]

Welcome to the TeAm zakee00! Looks like you are addicted!

WU times do vary depending on the Angle Range of the WU and other factors. Also you will note that when a WU starts the estimted time is lower than the actual time. So, I tend to take a daily average, which I can get from my SetiQueue.

Good luck and have fun!

 

[Assimilator1]

zakee00
lol ,no problem

Good to see the original TA SETI site been advertised by someone else

Mofunk
Shows how much more efficient the Ath64 is ,my XPM is over 700MHz faster than you CPU but its no faster! lol (though you have a higher FSB I believe)

aceofspades230
On Win2k & XP the WU time shown stays the same regardless of whether another program takes the cpu power or not.Of course the actual time passed for the WU to be completed does increase ,I believe on these OS's the time is calculated on the processing power used.
With Win9x & ME the actual time taken for the WU is also the 'shown' WU time ,the more logical method I think!

 

[zakee00]

Originally posted by: Assimilator1
zakee00
lol ,no problem

Good to see the original TA SETI site been advertised by someone else

Mofunk
Shows how much more efficient the Ath64 is ,my XPM is over 700MHz faster than you CPU but its no faster! lol (though you have a higher FSB I believe)

aceofspades230
On Win2k & XP the WU time shown stays the same regardless of whether another program takes the cpu power or not.Of course the actual time passed for the WU to be completed does increase ,I believe on these OS's the time is calculated on the processing power used.
With Win9x & ME the actual time taken for the WU is also the 'shown' WU time ,the more logical method I think!

i see. thanks for that info.