[QUOTE=bcp19;279278]Might not be hardware error, if you look at the P-1 work done in the lower ranges, you'll see some completed to 85K/1.5M while others are 30K/30K. If someone new started doing P-1 work with not much memory available, they'd probably have gotten several exponents in a row and not have done good P-1 work.[/QUOTE]
The point is the factors should have been found with the bounds reported [I]for these specific exponents[/I]. (They're in the pages James linked to.) If there was no error in hardware or elsewhere, that is.

[QUOTE=markr;279288]The point is the factors should have been found with the bounds reported [I]for these specific exponents[/I].[/quote]Exactly. To list those exponents (that I've found so far) in one place for easy reference:
[url=http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/6802123]M6,802,123[/url], [url=http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/6853937]M6,853,937[/url], [url=http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/6853967]M6,853,967[/url], [url=http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/6854297]M6,854,297[/url], [url=http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/6888719]M6,888,719[/url]

Unfortunately there's no way to know from PrimeNet's limited data from that time whether these factors were all not-found by the same computer / user / software or during a certain time period. A large number of the exponents in this range were P-1'd with abnormally low bounds so I'm redoing those P-1s anyhow, and I should find all the factors that should've been found (and plenty more outside the original P-1 bounds).

Should I be concerned that all the exponents I've completed that are above 60 million give the exact same amount of credit for completing them?

Music to my ears
 

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;279339]Should I be concerned that all the exponents I've completed that are above 60 million give the exact same amount of credit for completing them?[/QUOTE]
That's fine...
As long as it was zero (to 3 sig figs)

Nothing x something = nothing

60M is no man's land ATM

David

PS There be Dragons

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;279339]Should I be concerned that all the exponents I've completed that are above 60 million give the exact same amount of credit for completing them?[/QUOTE]Is it a reasonable amount of credit, something pretty close to 5GHz-days?
How much of a range do the exponents in question cover; are they all pretty close to each other?

All of them, according to my results page on my account, have a credit of exact. "5.3087 GHz Days" if I'm reading this correctly. They are fairly close to each other, but I would think that there would be a small difference since it goes out to 4 decimal places.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;279358]All of them, according to my results page on my account, have a credit of exact. "5.3087 GHz Days" if I'm reading this correctly. They are fairly close to each other, but I would think that there would be a small difference since it goes out to 4 decimal places.[/QUOTE]

What are the bounds used?

If they all have the same bounds, then the credit will be the same. Minor differences in bound = minor differences in score.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;279358]I would think that there would be a small difference since it goes out to 4 decimal places.[/QUOTE]Actually no: The credit is based solely on FFT size and bounds:[code]// $timing is from a precalculated lookup table based on exponent size
return ( $timing * ( 1.45 * $B1 + 0.079 * ($B2 - $B1) ) / 86400.0 );[/code]All exponents between M58,520,000 and M60,940,000 should use FFT size of 3200K and so if the [i]same bounds[/i] are chosen for each exponent then the credit will be exactly the same. Of course, the credit for a L-L test does vary directly with the exponent so it's quite possible that Prime95 would choose different bounds and therefore give different credit for similar assignments, but if the exponents are close enough together it's reasonable to assume that identical bounds would be chosen and therefore identical credit given.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;279358]All of them, according to my results page on my account, have a credit of exact. "5.3087 GHz Days" if I'm reading this correctly. They are fairly close to each other, but I would think that there would be a small difference since it goes out to 4 decimal places.[/QUOTE]

deleted

EDIT: James' post showed mine to be inaccurate :/

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;279372]Actually no: The credit is based solely on FFT size and bounds:[code]// $timing is from a precalculated lookup table based on exponent size
return ( $timing * ( 1.45 * $B1 + 0.079 * ($B2 - $B1) ) / 86400.0 );[/code]All exponents between M58,520,000 and M60,940,000 should use FFT size of 3200K and so if the [i]same bounds[/i] are chosen for each exponent then the credit will be exactly the same. Of course, the credit for a L-L test does vary directly with the exponent so it's quite possible that Prime95 would choose different bounds and therefore give different credit for similar assignments, but if the exponents are close enough together it's reasonable to assume that identical bounds would be chosen and therefore identical credit given.[/QUOTE]I'll remember that for when/if I do another LL instead of P-1 again sometime. :)

Some "newbie" questions.
 

Whether or not a factor is found by P-1 is determined purely by
the bounds, right? The amount of memory available just affects the speed.
Right?

If we decide on the optimum TF and P-1 bounds, it is of marginal
importance when we do the P-1, since most of the time no factor
will be found. So GPUs should go all the way on TF without waiting
for the P-1 which won't get done anyway. Right?

David