[QUOTE=msft;294046]Sorry find fatal error.

Ver 2.00
1) Speed up with -t option.
2) use "sEXPONENT.ITERATION.RESIDUE.txt"
[code]
$ ./CUDALucas -polite 0 26974951
Iteration 23300000 M( 26974951 )C, 0x31b4d280a170995a, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v2.00 err = 0.1797 (0:56 real, 5.6171 ms/iter, ETA 5:43:34)
$ ./CUDALucas -polite 0 26974951 -t
Iteration 23320000 M( 26974951 )C, 0x537f9e116a703252, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v2.00 err = 0.207 (0:56 real, 5.6250 ms/iter, ETA 5:42:11)
[/code][/QUOTE]

2.00 x64 Binaries (untested):

3.2 / sm 1.3
4.0 / sm 2.0
4.1 / sm 2.0

[QUOTE=ET_;294049]I am using a GTX275, CUDA toolkit 3.0, cc 1.3The timings were higher than with v1.3, and my computer was nearly unusable (with v1.3 there was no apparent slowdown).[/QUOTE]These timings seem odd. For 52M I'd expect timings (based on other data I've seen) somewhere around 11ms, not 54ms.

Wow
 

Initial testing on 2.00 with new -t testing is ~20% faster (3.2 / 1.3)!

[QUOTE]e:\cuda2\cuda -d 1 -threads 512 -c 10000 -f 1474560 -t -polite 0 26232301 >> 26232301.txt[/QUOTE]

1.69[CODE]
Iteration 14010000 M( 26232301 )C, 0xdcf162b969f4b93f, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v1.69 err = 0.125 (0:25 real, 2.5782 ms/iter, ETA 8:45:06)
Iteration 14020000 M( 26232301 )C, 0x0280e1e19768d6c5, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v1.69 err = 0.125 (0:25 real, 2.5630 ms/iter, ETA 8:41:33)
Iteration 14030000 M( 26232301 )C, 0xdf3cb8472cf8663e, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v1.69 err = 0.125 (0:26 real, 2.5630 ms/iter, ETA 8:41:08)
Iteration 14040000 M( 26232301 )C, 0x76a8dff0761ecaac, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v1.69 err = 0.125 (0:26 real, 2.5692 ms/iter, ETA 8:41:58)
[/CODE]
2.00[CODE]
continuing work from a partial result M26232301 fft length = 1474560 iteration = 14040001
Iteration 14050000 M( 26232301 )C, 0xf64c760ed90b27d4, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v2.00 err = 0.1094 (0:21 real, 2.1435 ms/iter, ETA 7:15:07)
Iteration 14060000 M( 26232301 )C, 0xf2b2b558215ee274, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v2.00 err = 0.1172 (0:22 real, 2.1427 ms/iter, ETA 7:14:37)
Iteration 14070000 M( 26232301 )C, 0x72fd99a3b37b01ef, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v2.00 err = 0.1172 (0:21 real, 2.1432 ms/iter, ETA 7:14:21)
Iteration 14080000 M( 26232301 )C, 0x29a7604f2a950ae8, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v2.00 err = 0.1172 (0:22 real, 2.1277 ms/iter, ETA 7:10:51)
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=bcp19;294048]Does anyone have a link to the 4.1 cudart64 and cufft64 dll's? I tested 3.2 and 4.0 on one GPU so far, and 3.2 is faster, so I wanted to check 4.1 as well. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Here you go, let me know if you need a different file.

[URL="http://www.sendspace.com/file/qyyqxl"]Link[/URL]

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;294061]These timings seem odd. For 52M I'd expect timings (based on other data I've seen) somewhere around 11ms, not 54ms.[/QUOTE]

I get 23ms with v1.3

Now I upgraded to Ubuntu 11.04, and have new drivers and toolkit to install. I'll let you know tomorrow how they perform.:smile:

Luigi

[QUOTE=flashjh;294069]Here you go, let me know if you need a different file.

[URL="http://www.sendspace.com/file/qyyqxl"]Link[/URL][/QUOTE]

That is what I needed, but 3.2 still seems fastest. Is this normal or do certain cards work better with 4.0/4.1?

[QUOTE=bcp19;294048]Does anyone have a link to the 4.1 cudart64 and cufft64 dll's? I tested 3.2 and 4.0 on one GPU so far, and 3.2 is faster, so I wanted to check 4.1 as well. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://home.htp-tel.de/shornbostel/"]http://home.htp-tel.de/shornbostel/[/URL]

Another 1 DC success and 1 DC fail for v1.69 (26242253 and respective 26269081), first reported, second running TC. This makes the score 3 to 1. For the former version I had 12 to 2. The mismatches were caused by hardware (OC, memory, playing too much around, whatever).

Switching to v2.0. I will resume the current work done with 1.69, few checkpoints behind, to see what's going on, if I get same residues.

Theoretically I am now able to build my own exe, but I prefer to use the one provided by flashjh, as it is now recognized as well compiled and running without issues, until I would be confident with my play'around.

[CODE]start M78643200 fft length = 4718592
Iteration 10000 M( 78643200 )C, 0x0a6f35cd25e82e0f, n = 4718592, CUDALucas v1.69 err = 0.04327 (1:19 real, 7.9267 ms/iter, ETA 173:07:58)
Iteration 20000 M( 78643200 )C, 0x00dda91d63971fb3, n = 4718592, CUDALucas v1.69 err = 0.04785 (1:18 real, 7.7783 ms/iter, ETA 169:52:09)
Iteration 30000 M( 78643200 )C, 0xe0b1e59a43b7098b, n = 4718592, CUDALucas v1.69 err = 0.04785 (1:19 real, 7.8894 ms/iter, ETA 172:16:24)[/CODE]

Mean[{7.9267,7.7783,7.8894}] = 7.8648



[CODE]Iteration 10000 M( 78643200 )C, 0x0a6f35cd25e82e0f, n = 4718592, CUDALucas v2.00 err = 0.04327 (1:13 real, 7.2161 ms/iter, ETA 157:36:44)
Iteration 20000 M( 78643200 )C, 0x00dda91d63971fb3, n = 4718592, CUDALucas v2.00 err = 0.04785 (1:11 real, 7.1533 ms/iter, ETA 156:13:09)
Iteration 30000 M( 78643200 )C, 0xe0b1e59a43b7098b, n = 4718592, CUDALucas v2.00 err = 0.04785 (1:12 real, 7.1515 ms/iter, ETA 156:09:39)[/CODE]

Mean[{7.2161,7.1533,7.1515}] = 7.17363


Avg. 8.78% faster.
Very good result.

[QUOTE=ET_;294049]I am using a GTX275, CUDA toolkit 3.0, cc 1.3.

Here are my benchmarks:

The timings were higher than with v1.3, and my computer was nearly unusable (with v1.3 there was no apparent slowdown).

Luigi[/QUOTE]

Never mind... I just upgraded my system to Ubuntu 11.04, CUDA 4.1 (driver 295.33).
My system is again responsive, and version 1.69 seems twice as fast as 1.3. Gonna try v2.0 now.

James, you were right, I get 11.3 ms/iteration. Please cancel my previous results, I'll send something more updated during the week.

Luigi

Gah, I can't get anything beyond 270.xx to install properly on 11.04 :P