Is there a reason this project is returning such low credit?
I don't mean compared to any other project, I mean to itself. Each unit used to be worth 480 credits, now I'm seeing less than one sixth of that per unit after the restart.

Is there a reason this project is returning such low credit?
I don't mean compared to any other project, I mean to itself. Each unit used to be worth 480 credits, now I'm seeing less than one sixth of that per unit after the restart.

I was asking myself the same question when I saw the first credits fall I went to look at the old statistics and there is no photo...
???

---

Has the fixed credit been stopped and is CreditNew (now quite old actually) now in place, credit varies a lot for every work unit.

Thanks
Conan

Compared to other projects with roughly the same CPU time usage, it's still pretty low.
Monty.

Same here, i remember it used to be a flat 480 per task, now it varies mostly under 100, heck even down to 22 and doesn't seem related to how long a task runs. I thought i'd give it another shot now that the project is up again eventhough i timed-out 411 tasks to report back in feb 2021 due to server downtime but here goes another dissapointment. Unless it goes back to 480, there's no point running this besides testing your new thermal paste :p

Small comparison with a Tesla T4 card:

Project Time Credits C/T
Einstein 1288 3333 => 2,58
Milkyway 174 227 => 1,30
Asteroid 1250 73 => 0,05


:(

---

I agree, the new tasks give a fraction of the credit compared to the old tasks.

The new tasks have double the run time compared to the old tasks.

The worst of both worlds.

Mayber I'm "old fashioned" or just "dumb" or whatever,
but I crunch for the "worth" of scientific results and
not for "meaningless" credits.

Sorry ...

I think that most users are processing work for the science. We have credit and Teams to create competition and promote more work to be processed as a result. When the credits are a fraction of other projects then people wil migrate to the other projects.

I am doing work on Universe@home and Asteroids@home on my 18 RPI's.

It takes about 48,789.71seconds to do a task on Asteroids and get a credit of 88.25. This represents a credit of 6.511 credits per hour.

On Universe it takes about 31,543.10 seconds to do a task which receives a credit of 666.67. This represents a credit of 76.09 credits per hour.

It is plain to see why I have asteroids preferences "Resource share" set to 25 and Universe set to 100.

The cost of electricity and hardware to process this work is very expensive, at least it is here in Australia. We like to get the best bang for the dollars and time we put into this voluntary process.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Double post

I think that most users are processing work for the science ...
... We like to get the best bang for the dollars and time we put into this voluntary process ...

I sort of don't understand what you are trying to say or point out?

Are you crunching for science ("discoveries") or a big bang (credits)?

I probably misunderstood you.
Sorry.

I sort of don't understand what you are trying to say or point out?

Are you crunching for science ("discoveries") or a big bang (credits)?

I probably misunderstood you.
Sorry.

I see that you are not in a Team so you have not ventured into challenges as a Team member. I am the founder of BOINC@AUSTRALIA and we have 3,310 members, not all working at the same time though . We have a Team forum where we talk about BOINC and all things distributed computing and computer hardware and software etc.

When we join a challenge we try and put up a good total for the Team and the in doing so do a lot of science.

Cheers

---

Proud Founder of
Have a look at my WebCam

That doesn't matter, all teams are getting the same "bad" credit. Some projects just "pay" less, always been that way. SETI paid very low for a gpu project relative to others, it still was the most popular gpu project.

project credit should only be compared to itself or other subprojects.

+1, rather +480 for fixed credits per wu again.

If you don't care about credits, don't care about this thread. ;)

I would prefer the credit to be a little higher too for at least the gpu app considering the power these new cards pull!
The current credit structure does not reward running a gpu.

In a perfect world, people would crunch 100% for science. It is wrong to crunch 100% for credit. The reality is, most people crunch 75% / 25%, 50% / 50% or 25% / 75% science vs. credit. Between Asteroids, Einstein, Milky Way, Universe, etc., I don't know how to compare and rank each of the project's science. I do know, when I rank each project's credit per CPU hour, Asteroids is the lowest.

...
When we join a challenge we try and put up a good total for the Team and the in doing so do a lot of science. ...

That sounds plausible, acceptable and is very OK.
Never thought about it from that perspectiv.

Thanks for the reply ...

...
If you don't care about credits, don't care about this thread ...

?

+1

I would prefer the credit to be a little higher too for at least the gpu app considering the power these new cards pull!
The current credit structure does not reward running a gpu.

Since the run time for CPU WUs is about 3x that for GPU WUs I thought that CPU WUs should be awarded 3x.
Interesting idea to scale per unit Watt expended. But how would the server know the power expended per WU?

---