Folks, for many the HT (HyperThreading) issue is one that they just don't understand. While Stanford allows you to run more than one instance of the Folding@Home client on your computer, you are not really helping them if the number of clients you are running is not equal to the number of REAL CPU's you actually have. While running two instances of the F@H client will return two work units more quickly than doing one at a time, that is not what is important. Returning one work unit 70% faster and starting the next generation of tests on the work unit, is what Stanford wants. Speed in working through each protein generation is very, very important. Sometimes quality is better than quantity. Quality in this case is work being returned more quickly. While it is well known that an HT CPU can run 2 work units because the OS treats it like two CPU's, and you can gain a possible 15-30 percent increase in points for that computer, it also means that each work unit is returned more slowly. In simple terms, if the project has 300 generations needed to test a theory on a protein model, and running two instances at once delays the return of work for 1 day each time, you end up with a 300 day delay. That translates to about a 10 month delay in examining your data for the final result. The bottom line is simply this: Run 1 instance for each CPU you have. An HT CPU is not two CPU's, it is one. Let's work to advance the science and spend a little less time worrying about the number of points you get.
This is a direct quote from Dr. Vijay Pande:
1) If you care primarily about points, running 2 procs on HT is still the best bet. We are grateful for all contributions and if people choose to run 2 procs on HT, our approach is that all contributions are welcome.
2) If you care about the science foremost and are interested in our recommendations, then do not run 2 procs on HT, but please just run one process. That won't be best for points, but is best for the science.
3) If your machine cannot make the deadlines, then one should run the timeless WUs.
I hope that clears these issues up and thanks to all for their contributions.
Thanks for listening and please do the right thing.
Larry
(copied from
http://www.em-dc.com/ info gathered from these forums)
) Um amigo meu teve um Prescott numa board que não suportava HT... Excusado sera' dizer k os resultados não eram grande coisa...
Claro k ele come tudo o que lhe dão... Podemos fazer o benchmark doutra maneira então... Metes o Intel a correr dois benchmarks dakeles e metes o AMD a fazer o mesmo, depois compara os tempos 
