> >That's surprising. Seti's own figures state that 3.0 takes 40% longer
than
> >2.4, as it does a lot of additional processing.
>
> Hmm... that is strange indeed. This because I am getting more and more
> convinced that it is at least not slower. And I checked, I was running the
i686
> version of 2.4 also.
>From Seti@home's website (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/version30.html)
Note on execution time and individual/team statistics
The combined effect of FFT optimization, pulse detection, and the extended
doppler drift range is that a typical workunit will take about 40% longer to
complete with version 3.0 on any given platform. On balance, this gives the
project the best science for the CPU cycles used. We trimmed processing
where we could to lessen the impact on execution time. This of course
affects the stats. It will take longer to add to your results received
statistic. While it might be nice to somehow make version 3.0 workunits
"worth more" stats wise, we have not added that complexity.
There is also a great deal more variabilty in execution time with version
3.0. This is explained in the FAQ. Over time, each participant will get both
"fast" workunits and "slow" workunits. Ths will average out and thus not
have much of an effect on stats.
Regards,
Ozz.
