X1650 PRO 512 or Athlon XP 3000

[skier]

should i use a GPU client with this,http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814102073 or text only console with my AMD Athlon XP 2800+ OCed to 2163MHz(from 2083)?

which would yeild better ppd?(XP does one % in 36min to 1hr+ depending on the protein(except my first WU on it which finished 100% after 6 hrs)

[DMB2000uk]

Interesting question, I guess the only way to know for sure would be to try both out and see.

I'd have though that the CPU would have been better, but can't say for sure.

Dan

[skier]

it would just be nice to have something that could complete WUs(the XP can do 20% or so, then it gets corrupted(or something like that) because i close it so many times due to time because i have to shut off the computer)

i just know that the 1650 is MUCH newer so mabie more folding power, + it has 1380MHz memclock, i guess ill just have to wait & see.

fold on!

[dicecca112]

I'd say that they'd be about equal. XP Processors are slow, and the X1650 would be slow too.

http://fahinfo.org/ http://gpu.fahinfo.org/index.php?allsco ... e&offset=0

From here I was able to find the 3000+ is gonna average at best 300ppd, average is about 100ppd
There is little to nothing on the X1650, but seeing the 1600xt is close, your looking at 235ppd. So actually it would be better for you to fold GPU.

[skier]

i have the 1650 @ 641/1836, and the XP @ 174(2.17MHz, or a 3000+)

both say basically one WU will end in 30 days giver take
-well, i actually havent tried the 1650 OC'ed, but i know the XP @ 178MHz FSB finishes 1 % in 32-38 min on average, 174 isnt so pretty(i guess i could leave it at 178MHz, but gets a little warmer than i'd like...... eh, i could deal with it if theres no better option)