Effective immediately bigadv base points bonuses cut from 50% to 20% The anouncement is here: http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=19059
this was going to happen sooner or later... bigadv folding has become a victim of its own success somewhat
I was inevitable that Stanford would do something like this at some point. Still, it was fun to see such silly high numbers while it lasted
Ouch, has just cut my PPD from 45 thou down to 32 thou after updating the stanford projects in HFM :/
I foresee huge numbers of complaints as the Americans wake up this morning... But bigadv still gives high PPD, enough to outstrip anything else, so this doesn't bother me much. Thankfully my latest uber bigadv WU was underway before these changes were made.
OK, something we'll just have to live with - I'll have to look at future investment in folding gear very carefully if Stanford are going to move the goal posts
My 980 @4.2 was doing a p6900 for 73K, after refreshing the projects in HFM it's now 58K, not the end of the world. However I am unimpressed with how they've gone about this, they seem to be making it up as they go along. I can sympathise with the frustration of dedicated folders buying high end 2p & 4p machines expecting a certain amount of points only to have the rug pulled from under them.
Yes, P6904 is in the table of affected WUs Project Standard points Old bigadv New bigadv Preferred Final k-factor 2684 8529 12790 10235 4 6 26.4 2685 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4 2686 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4 2689 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4 2692 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4 6900 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4 6901 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4 6903 18923 28385 22708 7.2 12 38.05 6904 26284 39426 31541 10.2 17 37.31
Phew, I'm glad I managed to upload my first 6904 last night before this kicked in. Be interesting to see the contrast on Thursday when my second unit ripens. - Ahh, just noticed the way they worded it - I think the unit I'm crunching now will get the higer points as it was downloaded before that email was sent, so I will have to wait for the third unit to see the difference. Also interesting to see that they are "considering renormalizing other parts of the system". I will now put my 4-chip project "on-hold" until they make their mind up about the points system. I'm not going to blow large amouts of dosh on something that turns out to be rubbish at producing points once I've built it (i.e. if they bias them towards GPUs again). You could say "ah but it all aids the science" but they have consistantly said the quality of the science returned is reflected in the points. So I will wait.
I'm really not at all happy about this. I rarely post at 'drama central', the Stanford forum, but couldn't help venting there a little. There's little indication by the Project leadership that they have done anything wrong and therefore I've got absolutely no confidence that they know where they want to focus next or that exactly the same thing won't happen again. There appears to be no lessons learnt at all so I need to learn one myself. I must not get so passionate about a pass-time again. I also can't escape the sneaking thought at the back of my mind that the timing of it is just too coincidental. Just as [H] have built numerous multi-processor machines and have started to out produce EVGA, then bigadv bonuses (in existence for 2 years) have been slashed and plans are announced for a GPU quick return bonus. The conspiracy theorist in me can't help but think that there's corporate influence at play here. I want to leave myself time to reflect so I'll probably press on to my personal target of a quarter bil and then decide what to do next. Just wish I could cancel the quad socket AMD board that's on it's way
Yes, quite. I am concerned that they are unaware (in a typical high-brow achademic kind of way) of the amout of leverage they have on the purchasing decisions of (probably) 10's or 100's of thousands of people. An ill-thought-out decision here or there and 1000's of graphics cards/motherboards/processors may be bought or consigned to the scrapheap. - not very eco-friendly. It may not be a consideration for them because they do not actually put their hands into their own pockets to fund any of this. What data centre manager anywhere would not love to be able to turn on or off entire facilities worth of computing power by simply posting an email on a forum at no cost to his organisation. And at no impact to his running costs, which are negligable anyway. I desperately hope this is not the case. If it is then we are all being played for dummies. If I get a sniff of this being true I am pulling all my resources and going to look for aliens in the sky. That'll be the same one I was about to buy then.
Think we should start a 'How much money have you wasted by investing in CPU/bigadv folding recently' thread and point them in that direction and ask for a refund? Personally, I just built a Sandy Bridge rig purely for doing bigadv a month ago, and have purchased hald the parts I required for a second. So I would say in the region of £800 wasted.... not as bad as some, but when that is 3 weeks work it certainly stings.
This explains why I stopped folding. Everyone is obsessed with points. It seems people have forgotten what FAH is about. (generalisation. I am aware this won't be most of BT, but I mean FAH as a whole).
Yep. Kind of how I'm starting to feel about the project leadership. The cause itself is still very worthy. I bought mine retail so not the very same one I trust Not wasted mate, just not what you may have bought if they hadn't recently seemed to affirm their need for the quick return of bigadv work units. A large part of the Project's success is about points because they supposedly equate to the science being done. They also add a degree of friendly competition between individuals and especially between teams thus serving to create a bit of fun. I along with many others am perfectly happy folding under different usernames for other individuals or in team competitions as long as I can visibly see the science being achieved somewhere. The issue here is that Stanford don't seem to be able to decide what projects they want contributors to focus on. The points system is supposed to give you that direction and if they flip their focus from one side to the other too often or too quickly then you lose confidence. I'm not prepared to carry on guessing which hardware to buy when they don't even seem to know themselves.
And given that the points and supposed to directly relate to the quality/urgency/quantity of the science being done it doesn't really fill you with confidence that they know what they are doing. The reason that F@H appeals to a large percentage of the people who actually do the folding is because of the competitive aspect and getting to watch yourself crank through units and get points, F@H wouldn't be anywhere near as popular if there wasn't a points based scoring system involved (as sad as that is to say). Currently it feels like they have moved the goal posts after I have kicked the ball.
Me too, I've built 2 Sandy Bridge systems to run bigadv and I feel Stanford has let everyone down very badly. They have behaved in a very cavalier fashion with no regard for the people who invest their own hard earned cash in the project. A proper consultation process would have been in order so people could input their views and hopefully buy into the final decision. I hoped to look at one of the Sandy Bridge E chips in the autumn but that's out the window now
The perfect smiley to sum up the situation and everyone's current feelings.... I feel sorry for you guys, especially the ones who, really take folding to the max. To be passionate about something and then have someone step on it unexpectedly, is a real kick in the teeth.
I'm pretty much with you here phoenicis on everything you said, it is bit of a blow to all us bigadv folders especially to those of us who have invested a lot in high-end hex-core systems Suppose we will have to take it on the chin and keep one eye fully open to how they run their ship as just changing something that everyone has come accustomed too without proper discussion is a bit off but then I suppose we all kinda knew that the bigadv bonus would drop or stop one day and the reason we old fold is supposed to be for the science but again as mentioned a lot of players are in it for the points, big of a moral dilemma for many... I will tell you one thing though, if I ever hear or see anything about corporate influence being used here making the F@H scientists change their projects to suit hardware manufacturers pockets im gone... Lots more info here if you want a read - http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=19062