PS3 doubles Folding@home power

By Robert Purchese Published 25 April, 2007

250,000 registered in first month.

More than 250,000 of you have allowed your PlayStation 3 to contribute processing power to the Folding@home project, the PS3 version of which has been active for just one month.

Stanford University's research now enjoys a computing power of 700 teraflops in a single moment, 400 of which are delivered by PS3 owners. The console has also helped bring recognition to the scheme, boosting the number of PCs actively contributing by 20 per cent.

"The PS3 turnout has been amazing, greatly exceeding our expectations and allowing us to push our work dramatically forward," said Vijay Pande, associate professor of Chemistry at Stanford University and Folding@home program lead.

"Thanks to PS3, we have performed simulations in the first few weeks that would normally take us more than a year to calculate. We are now gearing up for new simulations that will continue our current studies of Alzheimer's and other diseases."

Those of you with a PS3 can also download a new update for the software. The 1.1 version improves visibility of donor locations on the globe, folding calculation speed and protein viewing. There's also additional language support, help screen hints, and improved donor-name length and character handling.

You can join the program by clicking on the Folding@home icon in the PS3 CrossMediaBar (XMB), or you can set the application to run whenever your console is idle.

The Folding@home project allows you to join the race to understand protein-folding, misfolding and related diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cystic fibrosis and various cancers.

Head over to the Folding@home website for more information.

Be sure to pop over and see what's going on in the Eurogamers Folding@home group.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (61) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • JediMasterMalik #1 5 years ago

    Seems to be going quite well. I've only done a few WUs.

  • Cloudane #2 5 years ago

    If there is one thing that should be received with a grand round of applause for the PS3, it is this feature.

    *claps*

  • SeesThroughAll #3 5 years ago

    The blokes at Stanford Uni must be really happy about it.

  • Tomo #4 5 years ago

    Aye, terrific stuff.

  • The_Programmer #5 5 years ago

    With all those PS3's running I wonder how much C02 has been added to the atmosphere increasing global warming and therefore causing more cancer.

  • Gurgeh #6 5 years ago

    Article on PS3 performance in Folding:

    "the PS3 sits halfway between the GPU and the general-purpose CPU in terms of the flexibility vs. performance tradeoff. So the relative positions in the TFLOPS/CPU list given earlier are about what we'd expect, with the GPU being extremely good at the limited number of WU types that it can do, the PS3 being very good at a slightly larger number of types, and the general-purpose CPU offering a range of performance numbers on all the types of WUs that averages out to a result that puts it well at the bottom of the pack."

    [link url=http://arstechnica.com /news.ars/post/20070326-why-the-playstation-3-owns-the-pc-in -fh.html
    ]http://ar stechnica.com/news.ars/post/200...[/link]

    *edit* WU = work unit
    Edited by 1 at 25/04/07 @ 12:36

  • Dizzy #7 5 years ago

    I expect a 82% drop next month

    ;)

  • NoQuarter #8 5 years ago

    I'm not really sure about the value of Folding@home in a real sense. I'm doing a module at uni about computational chemistries, but this particular system looks like awfully bad value for money.

    The amount of energy wasted per computer doing this, the amount of money people have to spend on it and so far there are questionable returns. Hundreds of thousands of CPUs working using 50-300W each is an awful lot of power, and I can't help but feel people are being tricked into thinking it's a worthwhile use of their money (and carbon emissions).

    If my sums are correct (no guarantee), it's likely costing users tens of millions of pounds a day.

  • Dr Strangelove #9 5 years ago

    Can you set this to run when the console is idle or do you have to select it on the menu/XMB thing?

    I can't seem to find an option for this.

    edit - Thanks zuljin. See the post below folks...
    Edited by 1 at 25/04/07 @ 17:58

  • zuljin #10 5 years ago

    @Dizzy
    I know you're joking, just wanted to say that this is only average at certain points in time. The addition of the PS3 nearly trippled it at one point, getting pretty close to the Holy grail of 1000 TFlops. So I think this is already the "dropped down" value, exclusive of people that have got bored of it.

  • rudedudejude #11 5 years ago

    Next Headline:

    "PS3's left on folding around the world speed up Global warming by 7,500%, icecaps to melt in December '08"

  • zuljin #12 5 years ago

    @NoQuarter
    "If my sums are correct (no guarantee), it's likely costing users tens of millions of pounds a day."
    I think you are correct (maybe a bit on the expensive side), and I don't really disagree with anything you're saying, but this is a way of personalising research. Running a supercomputer to do these calculations will also require vast amounts of power, but they cannot afford the cost of one nor the upkeep. Hence this "distributed project". If you feel like helping out, great! If not, so be it.

    @Dr Strangelove
    "Can you set this to run when the console is idle or do you have to select it on the menu/XMB thing?"
    Press triangle on the option in networking (I think). Then it allows you to set an idle time after which to kick in.

  • Steroyd #13 5 years ago

    Just be thankful the Xbox 360 isn't doing it then.

    badum tish

    /gets coat

  • Les #14 5 years ago

    "I'm not really sure about the value of Folding@home in a real sense. I'm doing a module at uni about computational chemistries, but this particular system looks like awfully bad value for money.

    The amount of energy wasted per computer doing this, the amount of money people have to spend on it and so far there are questionable returns. Hundreds of thousands of CPUs working using 50-300W each is an awful lot of power, and I can't help but feel people are being tricked into thinking it's a worthwhile use of their money (and carbon emissions).

    If my sums are correct (no guarantee), it's likely costing users tens of millions of pounds a day."

    Trust me, your sums are nowhere near the mark...

  • Dizzy #15 5 years ago

    "Hence this "distributed project". If you feel like helping out, great! If not, so be it. "

    Yes and no. The PS3 uses far more power than a supercomputer would for the same TFLOPS. People probably even leave their TV/Plasma/LCD screens on to stare at it.

    The whole idea of public distributed computing was to recycle idle cycles of work PCs NOT run fulltime PS3s. So NoQuarter is right... this is a very bad way of spending those TFLOPS, but it is free publicity for Sony and of course it makes people feel good. The only positive thing is that maybe this research would not have been done because they had no money for a supercomputer... but at what price?

    >Just be thankful the Xbox 360 isn't doing it then.

    Errr??? 360 uses less power.
    Edited by 1 at 25/04/07 @ 12:56

  • mkreku #16 5 years ago

    Got to love this completely ridiculous hatred against Sony..

    "The PS3 takes energy to run Folding@Home!!". Yeah, it takes energy when it's actually doing something useful. I don't hear anyone complaining about how much energy it (and the Xbox 360 and the Wii) draws whenever you're actually GAMING ON IT.

    Apparently these people aren't concerned about using energy to play games (which is worthless) but loudly complain when the PS3's in the world doubles the computing power of the Folding@Home project.. it takes too much energy.

    What the hell do you think? That you DON'T use power when you're gaming? That your gaming is somehow more important than helping solve protein based diseases? The PS3 draws a lot of energy whenever it is turned on. Isn't it better than it uses that energy for something useful then? Shouldn't you really be complaining about how every GAMER in the world adds to Global Warming instead?

  • Roarer #17 5 years ago

    Yes, but how about using the PS3 for EVIL?

  • Guff-Pipe #18 5 years ago

    I agree with Mkreku. Good point.

  • Steroyd #19 5 years ago

    Errr??? 360 uses less power.

    But it generates more heat causing the ice caps to melt quicker.

    I can be petty to. :)

  • zuljin #20 5 years ago

    @Dizzy
    "The PS3 uses far more power than a supercomputer would for the same TFLOPS. People probably even leave their TV/Plasma/LCD screens on to stare at it."

    Disagree. Obviously if you leave your plasma on the whole time then that is a waste! But considering there are supercomputers using networks of PS3s, then this is no different.

    "The whole idea of public distributed computing was to recycle idle cycles of work PCs NOT run fulltime PS3s."
    Again, I disagree. If I go out to buy dinner and I leave my PS3 on, this kicks in. So it is recycling idle cycles. But the whole idea of distributed computing is NOT to recycle cpu cycles, it is to distribute workload over many pcs.

  • Dizzy #21 5 years ago

    >But it generates more heat causing the ice caps to melt quicker.

    If you have found a way to generate more heat with less power... please let us know. You might be in for a nobel price as well.

    >Again, I disagree. If I go out to buy dinner and I leave my PS3 on, this kicks in

    You should leave it on anyway. So in a way you are right... instead of wasting energy leaving it on, you at least do someting with it. I guess in a weird twisted way you are right. Definition of idle cycles is not walking out and going for a drink. Idle cycles are 97% of my CPU while I type this.

    >But considering there are supercomputers using networks of PS3s, then this is no different.

    There are none... but if there were you are correct. Sadly people do leave their screens on *and* the PS3 is by design not as efficient as a nicely packed supercomputer.
    Edited by 3 at 25/04/07 @ 13:12

  • zuljin #22 5 years ago

    @Dizzy
    "If you have find a way to generate more heat with less power"

    Are you serious? 2 different systems, with different efficiencies? First system lower power could transfer all energy to heat, second could transfer all to light. Granted, its unlikely, but it is a silly statement.

    Now gimme my nobel prize!

  • Beano #23 5 years ago

    "Stanford University's research now enjoys a computing power of 700 teraflops in a single moment..."

    How long is a moment?

    ...and is it an italian monent or a german one?

  • Dizzy #24 5 years ago

    >second could transfer all to light.

    I haven't seen a PS3 glow.

    You are correct of course but since both machines transfer to heat I am :)

  • Uncle_Fishboy #25 5 years ago

    load of plop

  • The-Bodybuilder #26 5 years ago

    What the hell does all of this mean? Is SOny really making skynet? Is John Connoer's life in danger? Will cell send an enhanced austrian bodybuilding, bad acting politician?

  • Rash' #27 5 years ago

    NoQuarter: "I'm not really sure about the value of Folding@home in a real sense. I'm doing a module at uni about computational chemistries, but this particular system looks like awfully bad value for money.

    The amount of energy wasted per computer doing this, the amount of money people have to spend on it and so far there are questionable returns. Hundreds of thousands of CPUs working using 50-300W each is an awful lot of power, and I can't help but feel people are being tricked into thinking it's a worthwhile use of their money (and carbon emissions).

    If my sums are correct (no guarantee), it's likely costing users tens of millions of pounds a day."

    The energy consumption during F@H is considerably lower than when in game mode, but even then what's most gratifying about this programme is the knowledge that regardless of that consumption you're is doing something that is worthwhile; beneficial to science and (lets not under play this ) the human race.

  • Tomo #28 5 years ago

    I bet you all leave your TVs/consoles/DVD players on standby anyway.

  • Salvia #29 5 years ago

    "With all those PS3's running I wonder how much C02 has been added to the atmosphere increasing global warming and therefore causing more cancer."

    Never mind that, what about all the pcs running so that people can add inane and asinine comments to forums and the like?

  • Gurgeh #30 5 years ago

    "But considering there are supercomputers using networks of PS3s, then this is no different. "

    Assuming you mean Cell processors rather than PS3s the first supercomputer using Cells should be ready next year. Note however it only uses the Cell "as an accelerator to a conventional (AMD Opteron) microprocessor-based server" and "we have no plans to build a giant cluster just out of Cell processors".

    http://www.hpc wire.com/hpc/893353.html

  • zuljin #31 5 years ago

    @Gurgeh
    Theres two variations, theres the one you're describing, but then there was one an American university lecturer planned to use (cluster of about 100 PS3s). That was basically just going to the store and buying a shitload of PS3s. Don't know if he ended up going with it tho.

  • Wite_Noiz #32 5 years ago

    "PS3 Offers gamers FUCK ALL for the future for the next generation of gaming"

    Nice to see well-developed arguments being put forward here.

  • SBfistfun #33 5 years ago

    @Xiphos

    Superroflmao adventure

  • abigsmurf #34 5 years ago

    I do have to wonder how many people leaving their consoles on to do this know that the PS3 consumes something like 300watts under load...

  • Guff-Pipe #35 5 years ago

    Xiphos = Pipe

  • Gurgeh #36 5 years ago

    "That was basically just going to the store and buying a shitload of PS3s. Don't know if he ended up going with it tho"

    I remember somone linked seventy PS2s together to form a supercomputer of sorts. It sounded like it could do decent number-crunching for the price but they had problems with the limited memory.

    Linking PS3s seems outlandish as they are expensive if you just want to do number-crunching, unless you somehow managed to tap into the processing power of the NVidia chip as well as the Cells (and even then you're forking out for a Blu-Ray drive you don't need on each machine).

    Anyway he probably didn't go ahead and buy 100 PS3s based on this: ;-)

    "PS3s and Xbox 360s were available in all 100 of the stores in this most recent survey" (so much for the spin about US PS3 supplies being limited by the European release)

    [link url=http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php ?option=com_content&task=view&id=5343&Itemid=2
    ]http://ww w.next-gen.biz/index.php?option...[/link]

  • Rash' #37 5 years ago

    "I do have to wonder how many people leaving their consoles on to do this know that the PS3 consumes something like 300watts under load..."

    It's 200 when folding...

  • SeesThroughAll #38 5 years ago

    The usual trolls are around, adding the usual spin.
    Edited by 1 at 25/04/07 @ 14:45

  • Jonsend #39 5 years ago

    At 8.75p/kWh (UK average) folding would cost £12.60 for a solid month and would return 90 work units at a cost of 14p each.

  • zuljin #40 5 years ago

    @Gurgeh
    I don't think its that astronomical really. Yes you are paying for Blu-Ray, but if you can get your research working on a PS3, you are basically buying a fairly good number crunching PC for $600 - round about £300 here.

    And you don't have to pay extortionate amounts (time and money) for Windows XP/Vista! Trying to find the original article, but googling PS3 networks only brings up Folding@Home now...

  • chupachups #41 5 years ago

    "Yeah, it takes energy when it's actually doing something useful. I don't hear anyone complaining about how much energy it (and the Xbox 360 and the Wii) draws whenever you're actually GAMING ON IT. "

    No one claims gaming is useful.

    Lots of people claim Folding@home is useful.


    "The energy consumption during F@H is considerably lower than when in game mode, but even then what's most gratifying about this programme is the knowledge that regardless of that consumption you're is doing something that is worthwhile; beneficial to science and (lets not under play this ) the human race. "

    If you're really trying to help the human race, you have to first weigh up whether your actions help it or hurt it more.

    If folding@home does very little useful science but pumps out lots of potentially harmful greenhouse gases, then it might be that on balance this is doing more harm than good.

    It might be better for the human race if people just switched their PS3s off when they aren't gaming.
    Edited by 1 at 25/04/07 @ 15:12

  • Les #42 5 years ago

    The number of idiots trying to spin this into negative news is really astonishing. And quite desperate...

  • SeesThroughAll #43 5 years ago

    If folding@home does very little useful science but pumps out lots of potentially harmful greenhouse gases, then it might be that on balance this is doing more harm than good.

    It might be better for the human race if people just switched their PS3s off when they aren't gaming.


    Enough of this hypocritical rubbish.

    And if you're that pedantic about the greenhouse effect, turn off your 360 as well, because 360s worldwide are contributing more to the greenhouse effect than PS3s, just from the sheer number of consoles - 1600 million Watt by XBox360s versus 1140 million Watt by PS3s.

    In fact, it might be even better for the human race if nobody played video games at all.

    If next week Stanford University announces that 360 users will also be able to contribute from their GPUs, I want to see how many people in EG are going to complain about the global warming. No, they'll be bragging about how much faster the GPU is than the Cell (a GPU faster than a CPU, what a surprise).
    Edited by 1 at 25/04/07 @ 15:21

  • Les #44 5 years ago

    Living kills the earth. Let's just all commit suicide. You xbots go first...

  • JayPee #45 5 years ago

    Well what the fook else are you going to do with it?

    Play games!?

    As if.

  • Nobuo #46 5 years ago

    It's a shame the 360 can't do this, because then it would be good news.

    Currently, this is very very bad news with it contributing to global warming, terrorists, gay marriage etc.

  • NoQuarter #47 5 years ago

    OK, my estimate was 1000 fold out (KILOwatt hours), I'm a chemist not a mathematician.

  • chrisjm #48 5 years ago

    you would do more good by donating to charity whatever you could save on electricity by not running this.

  • chrisjm #49 5 years ago

    "I'm kind of at a loss to see what the haters are so riled up about."

    The lies, the bully tactics with companies like lik-sang, the arrogence, delays, etc etc.

    i dont think it is hate, its good people are not letting sony walk all over them. although im sure most will eventually cave in and get one when a killer app arives & price cut.

  • Elfish #50 5 years ago

    I've got a better question: How do you update Folding to 1.1 as it states in the article? I can't find any option anywhere to update it.

  • cyber_nicco #51 5 years ago

    Does this mean Folding@home tops the PS3 charts?

  • Xerx3s #52 5 years ago

    I expect a 82% drop next month

    I presume that they will release a game next month then?

    /coat

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #53 5 years ago

    I am deeply skeptical about the organisers of Folding@Home. I suspect everybody's £12.80 per month is going straight into the pockets of multinational pharmaceutical companies, and the humble, human-race-saving academics setting this up are rubbing their hands and looking at directorships.

    Just look at all the gene-patenting shenagigans that have gone on since the Human Genome project.

  • SeesThroughAll #54 5 years ago

    Mentalist(air) +1

    Finally a critical comment that actually makes sense.

    You certainly have a point there.

  • Les #55 5 years ago

    "although im sure most will eventually cave in and get one when a killer app arives & price cut."

    I sure hope not. If I ever do venture into online gaming, I hope to be spared from you morons.

  • yagisencho #56 5 years ago

    I contributed 132 work units to this project on my computers (GPU & CPU) before pulling the plug a couple days ago.

    I think that the project's heart is in the right place, but I'm dropping out until I can contribute to the project efficiently. Hopefully AMD and NVidia will focus less on teraflops and more on power efficiency in their next generation of GPUs. Then maybe I'll be able to rationalize the power usage. As it is, the GPU client is sucking down somewhere around 250-300 watts (system total).

    Both fossil fuels and the atmosphere are finite. I'm optimistic though that they'll scale back on power requirements as they shrink their GPU dies. Once they do, I'll look into running a client on a solar-powered rig.

  • immateriaux #57 5 years ago

    If people only occasionally switch this on, then they are still making a contribution, which is the main thing and a very good thing.

    Unfortunately, any of the benefits that do accrue from this project are likely to be applied to some of the petty minded morons on this thread just as much as anyone else.

  • wilesy #58 5 years ago

    Buy your leccy from ecotricity and stop this stupid arguement about adding to global warming.

  • YourMessageHere #59 5 years ago

    Isn't everyone's £12.80/month going to the electricity supplier? Significantly more threatening than pharmaceutical companies in my opinion, in that they actually want money off me. Plus, if any headway is made in getting rid of Alzheimers from this, I'm more than happy for the guys who thought this up to become directors and live comfortably off it for the rest of their lives (as if they wouldn't anyway); Alzheimers is NASTY shit and the sooner it's gone the better.

    Also, my grasp of the whole power generation/CO2 production argument is hazy, but surely the extra CO2 is only produced when greater amounts of fossil fuels are consumed, which would only happen if there was a significantly higher drain on the grid, and the proportion of people owning PS3s among all those drawing power from the grid at any one point isn't that huge.

  • wayn3h #60 5 years ago

    wow you all sound like incredibly interesting people...

  • bonker #61 5 years ago

    "its a stupidly expensive box for what most people are going to use it for (play games)"

    I thought it was a stupidly inexpensive box for what most people are going to use it for (watch Blu-Ray movies)

    ;)