It's not really a game. It only allows you to compare the power of your computer with best computers of other players. Some computers are good for Foldit, other poor. I noticed that Foldit recipe is very CPU resource consuming. I suppose that when a player buys a new computer, he will succeed gaining more points to this test.
1) Click on this contest: http://fold.it/portal/node/995975
2) Go to "Link to join"
Click on "Click here if you would like to join."
3) Open Foldit
4) In the main menu, click on "Contests" on the right pannel
You should see the Contests you joined, including this one. Select it and click on "play".
You'll get a very big protein.
5) Click here above right in order to load this recipe (or, in the recipe menu, type manually the number 46825 to manually load this recipe).
6) Run the recipe once.
7) Your score will rank your pc relative to my best pc I ever tested there
8) Open the right green button on the recipe in order to see the reciupe log. Here you can see some information, for example the CPU time of the first recipe loop. With a better PC, you'll see a lower CPU time there.
9) Save and share the result with yourself or your group for later archive. Whrite there the characteristics of your computer.
10) You might consider adding it here too. This could help people to select best PC adapted to Foldit … and show that a powerfull PC is good for using recipes (it's less important for hand folding).
CPU time first loop: 13.232 sec
Result report: 15125.471 pts
Total gain: 15.794
49 loops
Computer:
Constructor: ICT Service desk
Processor: Intel Core i3-2350M CPU @ 2.30 GHz 2.30 GHz
RAM: 4.00 Go
System: 64 bits
OS: Windows 7 Enterprise, Service Pack 1
CPU time first loop: 32.9 sec
Result report: 15110.991 pts
Total gain: 1.141
Computer:
Constructor: Apple
Model: MacBook Air
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo CPU @ 2.13 GHz
RAM: 2 Go 1067 MHz DDR3
Ver noyau: Darwin 10.8.0
OS: Mac OSX 10.6.8
the CPU time first loop and the number of loops is the only pertinent results to be compared. Above, the old Mac took 19 loops. It is approximately 2.5 times less powerful than the (new) pc above.
The points are only good for ranking: more point = more powerful computer, but 200 pts is not 2 times more powerful than 100 pts (the points depend on the zone of the protein used for the test). I used a very big protein in order to allow this test last for several years.
I'll add other test results here. Please feel free to add results of other computers and configurations here.
If you save and share your result, when you run the resipe on another computer, previous results are archived in note 1 (and also displayed in the log).
CPU time first loop: 11.24 sec
Result report: 15125.584 pts
Total gains: 15.907 pts
51 loops
3 clients running at the same time
Computer:
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012)
Processor: Intel Core i7 CPU @ 2.9 GHz, 2 cores
1 processor, 2 cores, niv2 cache 256 Ko/core, niv 3 cache: 4 Mo
RAM: 8 Go 1600 MHz DDR3
Intel HD graphics 4000 512 Mo
OS: OS X 10.8.4 (12E55)
CPU time first loop: 26.8 sec
Result report: 15112.437 pts
Total gain: 2.76
24 loops
1 client
Computer:
Vaio vgn-sz2M/B
Processor: Intel Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz
1 processor, 2 cores
RAM: 1GB/Go DDR2 SDRAM (533MHz)
Graphics: NVIDIA geforce Go 7400 with turbochache supporting 128MB/Mo
OS: Ms Windows XP home edition
CPU time first loop: 5,1 sec
Result report: 15129.582
Total gain: 19.905
127 loops
2 clients
Computer:
Acer Predator G3600
Processor: Intel Core i7-2600 CPU@3.40GHz 3.40GHz
64 bits
RAM 8 Go
Graphics: NVIDIA geforce GT440
OS: Windows 7 familial edition, Service Pack 1
1) Click on this contest: http://fold.it/portal/node/995975
2) Go to "Link to join"
Click on "Click here if you would like to join."
closest "Link to join" is "join contest with magic key", which begets "wrong magic key".
Not very helpful
59 loops, 10.275 sec/1st loop
AMD Phenom II X4 810 processor 2.6 GHZ, 8Gb RAM
ATI Radon HD3200 graphic care
(64bit, quad core)
W7, 2nd client running during test
2 more clients open but static
precision wiggle for test
=========================
2nd run, fast wiggle,
2 other clients running
71 loops, avg 8.6 sec/loop
=========================
It appears the choice of fast/slow wiggle is important