Hi all,
Anyone give me a clue as to what this means (as found on some project websites under "Preferences"):
Maximum CPU % for graphics 0 ... 100
The default seems to be 20....what happens if one changes this ?
regards
Tim
BOINC project preferences setting
-
UBT - Timbo
- UBT Forum Admin
- Posts: 9680
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:00 am
- Location: NW Midlands
- Contact:
-
UBT - Chris Suddick
- Active UBT Contributor 15+ yrs
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:00 am
- Location: Warrington, Cheshire
-
UBT - Mikee
- Marvin the Dalek
- Posts: 4396
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:00 am
- Location: North Wales
It would be used in projects that set up a screensaver. SETI and Einstein spring to mind. I think one of the old 'proteins' projects used it as well. You can tell if a project uses it as the 'show graphics' button is available on the 'tasks' screen.
As Chris says it would be the amount of processor usage is allowed to be used - the lower the clunkier the graphics on the screensaver.
As Chris says it would be the amount of processor usage is allowed to be used - the lower the clunkier the graphics on the screensaver.
-
UBT - Timbo
- UBT Forum Admin
- Posts: 9680
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:00 am
- Location: NW Midlands
- Contact:
Hi Mike & ChrisUBT - Mikee wrote:It would be used in projects that set up a screensaver. SETI and Einstein spring to mind. I think one of the old 'proteins' projects used it as well. You can tell if a project uses it as the 'show graphics' button is available on the 'tasks' screen.
As Chris says it would be the amount of processor usage is allowed to be used - the lower the clunkier the graphics on the screensaver.
Thanks for that - it all makes sense now - I thought it might have something to do with using a GPU....how wrong can I have been !!
regards
Tim
Depending on the quality of the screensaver it kicks in, it can be a Royal Pain in the *ss 
The older ones were written in ye days of olde when a screen saver was essential else you literally burnt an image into the phosphorescent coating on the inside of the screen - not a happy outcome - when you left it on, screen contents didn't change and you went shopping at local hyper-market. By the time you got back the image on screen was burnt into the screen coating - permanently.
These days that's no issue burning into phosphorescent coating is damn near impossible with modern coatings. So what is now a redundant utility has morphed into a "hey look at my screen saver utility", that just so happens carries an ad or whatever you want it to.
Depending on how well the saver was written, and your attitude to Credits, depends what you want to do with it. A setting of zero turns if off, and incremental increases from zero give it more machine resources to do its thing. It can be fun (casual gamer) or a Royal Pain in the Butt if you are the intense "gotta rack up the credits" type.
Pays your money takes your choice as they say
The older ones were written in ye days of olde when a screen saver was essential else you literally burnt an image into the phosphorescent coating on the inside of the screen - not a happy outcome - when you left it on, screen contents didn't change and you went shopping at local hyper-market. By the time you got back the image on screen was burnt into the screen coating - permanently.
These days that's no issue burning into phosphorescent coating is damn near impossible with modern coatings. So what is now a redundant utility has morphed into a "hey look at my screen saver utility", that just so happens carries an ad or whatever you want it to.
Depending on how well the saver was written, and your attitude to Credits, depends what you want to do with it. A setting of zero turns if off, and incremental increases from zero give it more machine resources to do its thing. It can be fun (casual gamer) or a Royal Pain in the Butt if you are the intense "gotta rack up the credits" type.
Pays your money takes your choice as they say