Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#1 2003-02-07 7:25 pm
- hecksf
- Member
- From: TX
- Registered: 2000-08-19
- Posts: 84
Benchmark in FAHlog.txt
Near the top or your FAHlog.txt in your user library you should have something like this
[02:16:22] Loaded queue successfully.
[02:16:22] + Benchmarking ...
[02:16:26] The benchmark result is 384
this benchmark is for a 500 G4 100 mhz bus and 256 ram with OS 10.2.3
My 500 ibook with 256 ram is about 260 or so.
I am curious what others are gitting and on what machine config.
: 
Offline
#2 2003-02-07 7:41 pm
Offline
#3 2003-02-07 10:00 pm
- hecksf
- Member
- From: TX
- Registered: 2000-08-19
- Posts: 84
Re: Benchmark in FAHlog.txt
Did you open it with text edit?
[15:03:18]
[15:03:18] Loaded queue successfully.
[15:03:18] + Benchmarking ...
[15:03:21] The benchmark result is 238
[15:03:21]
this is from my ibook
Offline
#4 2003-02-07 10:07 pm
Re: Benchmark in FAHlog.txt
Did you open it with text edit?
Yep, here's what mine says:
[00:33:50]
[00:33:50] Loaded queue successfully.
[00:33:50] + Benchmarking ...
[00:33:59]
[00:33:59] + Processing work unit
[00:33:59] Core required: FahCore_65.exe
Offline
#5 2003-02-07 10:35 pm
- key24
- Member
- Registered: 2002-04-05
- Posts: 64
Re: Benchmark in FAHlog.txt
The lower the better right '
'. Mine says 147, for a 400mhz imac.
Offline
#6 2003-02-21 11:49 pm
- hecksf
- Member
- From: TX
- Registered: 2000-08-19
- Posts: 84
Re: Benchmark in FAHlog.txt
I just loaded the graphical client onto an eMac
700Mhz
128 MB ram
256 l2 cache
OS10.2.4
the benchmark came out at
440
a bit higher than my G4 500. despite the small L2 cache the extra Mhz do make a difference
Offline
#7 2003-02-26 4:14 pm
- hecksf
- Member
- From: TX
- Registered: 2000-08-19
- Posts: 84
Re: Benchmark in FAHlog.txt
I just loaded the graphical client on a
dual processor
1GHz
167 Bus speed
256 level 2
1 MB level 3
256 MB ram
80GB HD
OS 10.2.4
recieved
[19:42:38] + Benchmarking ...
[19:42:46] The benchmark result is 1068
Wonder if more ram would bring this mark up
Offline
#8 2003-02-27 12:07 am
- The Power To BURN!!!!
- Member
- From: Iowa
- Registered: 2001-01-09
- Posts: 790
Re: Benchmark in FAHlog.txt
[00:33:50]
[00:33:50] Loaded queue successfully.
[00:33:50] + Benchmarking ...
[00:33:59]
[00:33:59] + Processing work unit
[00:33:59] Core required: FahCore_65.exe
I get the same thing. Your running the Terminal client right, Art? Maybe it only shows if you are running the graphical client?
Suto lvl60 Human Warrior Whisperwind
Knab lvl60 Human Warlock Whisperwind
Offline
#9 2003-02-27 4:33 pm
- Macskeeball
- Member
- Registered: 2002-02-07
- Posts: 8014
- Website
Re: Benchmark in FAHlog.txt
I'm running the 3.24 final (console client), and I'm not seeing a benchmark number in FAHLog.txt either.
tech writer for hire
Offline
#10 2003-02-28 8:40 am
- Botero
- Member
- From: EE.UU.
- Registered: 2000-07-28
- Posts: 65
Re: Benchmark in FAHlog.txt
So hey: how valuable is this benchmarking information? I've looked at mine a few times and it's usually been around the 220s, but today it's at a lame 191. I'm running the graphical client on a G4 (digital audio) 533 MHz, OS X 10.2.4, 500 Megs of RAM, two monitors, and a desktop picture featuring a tranquil mountain scene...
But seriously, is this number really an indication of how fast my machine is folding? If it is, it sounds like I'm running slower than other people with a similar setup. Might it also depend on the protein being folded? Is the graphical client (which I leave hidden) really that much slower than the CLI one?
- Botero
F@H User ID: soferd
Offline
#11 2003-03-03 6:25 pm
- hecksf
- Member
- From: TX
- Registered: 2000-08-19
- Posts: 84
Re: Benchmark in FAHlog.txt
I'm not sure but I think that benchmarking can be effected by apps running in the back ground. If these rob processor cycles thaen the mark could be lower.
Offline
