An alternative, a.k.a. a (potential) competitor to WCG in the distributed computing space.

1-billion core-hours is approx equal to:
- 1-billion cores running for 1-hour;
- 416.7-million cores for 24hrs (1-day);
- 59.5-million cores for 7-days (1-week);
- 14.8-million cores for 28-days (4-weeks);
- 2.3-million cores for 180-days (~6-months);
- 1.15-million cores for 360-days (~1-year);

Assuming:
number of devices = number of cores;
globalStats lastUpdated 2011.04.23Sa.1205UTC:
number of devices = 1,758,291; we have WCG's output at roughly:

- 1.7-million cores for 245days

to match 1-billion core-hours. If Google throws in 2.3-million cores, WCG would be left behind by about (245days-180days) or 65days. However, lots of variables here. For one, how much performance per core is Google talking about? And WCG may have more cores than devices and/or more powerful cores.
;
------------
;Edit1: I pressed that submit button accidentally !?#@
;Edit2: Added some math/calculations
;

I bet that the numbers provided above by The Aspens, based on WCG average historical statistics, are more close to express the real WCG production, that is 12.8 % more powerful than Google initiative (if we consider that are comparable cores/performances on the Google side, what I doubt due the challenges, the learning curve of any project and the real aspects involved to put it on the right trail at full speed !) take a look at:

Competition is good for society, by the way, and so are alternatives. But my home team is WCG. However, I can see some weaknesses in the way WCG plays the distributed computing game. Without competition or the threat of one, these weaknesses does not matter at all else we can afford to be in denial and next label those weaknesses as strengths. With competition, these weaknesses are things that winners successfully rectified while the competition did not -- and from which losers get pounded. Let's take a close look at where Google is trying to steer its ship. What better view than the look closest to the metal:

WCG has one project that crashes right into one area where Google declared it is aiming at. The WCG project CleanEnergyProject-Phase2 (CEP2) is an I/O-intensive project that smacks right into whatever Google may have been thinking in coming up with the formulation, "The higher the CPU to I/O rate, the better the match with the system." Either Google is misguided about what it sees as the criteria for projects to be best suited for crunching (a.k.a gridComputing, parallelComputing, distributedComputing), or WCG should have known better than accept that CEP2 project.
;

They may get a few projects that would not fly here.

I for one would not work on any project that is not freely available.

They do however have the staff to vet any work on their systems.