Legit Reviews

which puts out units faster, or is it exactly the same?

What kind of folding?

Dan

SMP i guess

Don't think it really makes any noticeable difference either way.

Now with GPU2 folding, the Vista client tends to have a lower CPU overhead so you can fold more on the CPU as well.

Dan

DMB2000uk wrote:Don't think it really makes any noticeable difference either way.

Now with GPU2 folding, the Vista client tends to have a lower CPU overhead so you can fold more on the CPU as well.

Dan

Vista people have had issue setting it up, XP hasn't. Best bet is either a Ubuntu VM or NotFred VM http://reilly.homeip.net/folding/vm.html

DMB2000uk wrote:Don't think it really makes any noticeable difference either way.

Now with GPU2 folding, the Vista client tends to have a lower CPU overhead so you can fold more on the CPU as well.

Dan

Remember, I'm talking about NVIDIA GPU folding here.....this is still under debate. Sure task manager shows lower cpu usage in Vista compared to XP but I haven't seen anything more than a marginal difference in "true" CPU use. In XP you can usually run 3-4 GPU's on a single processor before you start to degrade production. Vista is the same.

One very important advantage that Vista has is that the system does not feel like it's running on 64MB of RAM like it does GPU folding in XP. This makes Vista an ideal OS to GPU fold on for a machine that is used frequently.

XP has an advantage of being able to address more GPU clients than Vista. Vista seems to only be able to use 5 GPU's. For someone wanting to set-up a dedicated GPU folding box with 3-4 multiple GPU's like 4870x2/4850x2 or 9800GX2 you'd be best served running in XP.