I leave HT on, but use 3 threads for LA on my i7 laptop. I find that less memory-intensive items can run on a couple threads without meaningfully lengthening the matrix solve time; so I run t45-level ECM on 2-4 threads during LA phases. 3 ECM threads adds something like 40-50% to the matrix solve time.

Even one thread of LLR adds more than 33% to the matrix solve time, a net loss of productivity- more evidence that LA is memory bound.

Good to know. For what it's worth, on my desktop (i7-4930K with DDR3-2133), running with 8 threads (out of 12 max) gave a shorter matrix time than running with 5.

Five seems a rather odd number to run with; are 8 threads faster than 6?

With 8 threads, at 93.4% left, estimated time was 6 hours, 6 minutes. After stopping and restarting with 6 threads, at 94.2% left, estimated time is 6 hours, 7 minutes. So not a huge difference at this point, but 8 threads does seem to be slightly faster.

[QUOTE=wombatman;383255]With 8 threads, at 93.4% left, estimated time was 6 hours, 6 minutes. After stopping and restarting with 6 threads, at 94.2% left, estimated time is 6 hours, 7 minutes. So not a huge difference at this point, but 8 threads does seem to be slightly faster.[/QUOTE]

Did you make the restart after a checkpoint write? If not your estimates are wrong....lol...Trust me, use only 4 threads on an i7.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;383263]Did you make the restart after a checkpoint write? If not your estimates are wrong....lol...Trust me, use only 4 threads on an i7.[/QUOTE]

This was on the 4930K, which is a hexcore. So I assume you would suggest using 6 then? As for the checkpoint write, it restarted at whatever the most recent checkpoint was. I allowed it to run for a little while (2 hours maybe?) before I made the comparison.

GC_2_804 factors as: [CODE]prp110 factor: 33171467545913528394901826342849435175076320098356616463849806938179530846476177045145467298416719242338777543
prp128 factor: 66337207356412000743645957542928569346131357963000529884803640096419852671381210310677453787545453308135827524459731428312304629[/CODE]

Used 8 threads for the most part, but not sure on exact time due to stopping and restarting.

[QUOTE=wombatman;383278]GC_2_804 factors as: [CODE]prp110 factor: 33171467545913528394901826342849435175076320098356616463849806938179530846476177045145467298416719242338777543
prp128 factor: 66337207356412000743645957542928569346131357963000529884803640096419852671381210310677453787545453308135827524459731428312304629[/CODE]

Used 8 threads for the most part, but not sure on exact time due to stopping and restarting.[/QUOTE]Nice one. Most emphatically not an ECM miss.

C803 done
 

[code]
Thu Sep 18 12:01:49 2014 prp55 factor: 5582432252872869236521104018238102090268889308241072791
Thu Sep 18 12:01:49 2014 prp57 factor: 787070341411058525069805258917368057681579098025714593919
Thu Sep 18 12:01:49 2014 prp113 factor: 13258758255385801515762418489024142874342924955295765687599155762757473553398787872568751402338595721038333998723
[/code]

90 hours for 9.0M matrix on i7/2600 -t3

Log at [url]http://pastebin.com/kXQS6ALs[/url]

I see we've now pretty much caught up with the sievers.

PS the P55 was found about two months ago by Rob Hooft

About 88 hours at 120 density for HomePrimes C169.

L1279 done
 

[code]
Mon Sep 22 12:56:33 2014 prp68 factor: 11796685657411858681673189671529474078015358355745635406322085184849
Mon Sep 22 12:56:33 2014 prp201 factor: 167275321270004823113094376167500206492953755551507388838876379729575927948920882695267133105652523997625793124565907114456691515023037317492383141127893428298359878471498659572083339084478279782404701
[/code]

202 hours for 18.7M matrix on i7/4930K -t6

Log at [url]http://pastebin.com/U7581X1v[/url]