There are a lot of things to consider. If you can make 300,000 ppd on a single 4P machine using 600 W, why would somebody like me continue to fold on C2Qs making 170,000 ppd on 3750 W while having the computing power of at least 2 4P 6174 machines. As I see it, there needs to be a closer relationship of BA to normal smp work. However the genie is out of the bottle and probably can't be put back in.
Nnormal -smp 48 should make say 20% more ppd than 48 uniprocessor cores and BA at -smp 48 should make 20% more than normal smp at -smp 48. You can pick the % and pick the number of cores that % applies to. Pick lower than 48 cores and the QRB will skew the relationship, but perhaps it should.
As I've said before in this subforum, a new MP benchmark machine is needed. and a complete reset of the values and QRB bonus along with the new machine. Without it, we're all going to be dropping three digits and adding a K when we talk about ppd. Ahh, I see we already are doing that, without doing anywhere even near 100, much less 1000 times the science. (One 6174 core is approximately equal to a P4E (640) @ 3.6 GHz)
All the cpu WUs need to be benched on the new machine and the relationship set. PG can pick the performance point on the scale they want to match, though I doubt my suggestion that they go back to the 110 ppd on a P4C @ 2.8 GHz will fly. I never quit trying to protect the value of yesterdays points.
Every body that spent bucks to get on the BA bandwagon needs to enjoy the big points while they can. In the not too distant future, the QRB will make your machines almost as obsolete as mine.