Welcome to the forum. You can use the current version of 2.05. You won't find CUDA 3.2 builds because the current code uses functions that are not available in CUDA 3.2. Use the version that matches your driver, to get started. If your driver is up-to-date then CUDA 6.

If something is preventing you from using a driver that supports CUDA 4 or higher , let me know and I'll see what I can do. Let us know if you have any other questions.

Could anyone tell me why I was receiving negative ETA times for first time LL testing on version 2.03? I have not tested with the 2.05beta yet as I'm still prepping to launch it but I am curious what negative times actually mean. I don't recall observing this phenomenon for LL Double Checking.

While Device 0 was testing I had Device 1 double checking a different exponent with a 2nd instance of CL 2.03
[Code]
------- DEVICE 0 -------
name GeForce GTX 295
totalGlobalMem 939524096
sharedMemPerBlock 16384
regsPerBlock 16384
warpSize 32
memPitch 2147483647
maxThreadsPerBlock 512
maxThreadsDim[3] 512,512,64
maxGridSize[3] 65535,65535,1
totalConstMem 65536
Compatibility 1.3
clockRate (MHz) 1242
textureAlignment 256
deviceOverlap 1
multiProcessorCount 30

Continuing work from a partial result of M61421179 fft length = 3670016 iteration = 5647384
Iteration 5700000 M( 61421179 )C, 0xe98ce4744ffa0fe4, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0898 (20:41 real, 12.4082 ms/iter, ETA 191:58:57)
Iteration 5800000 M( 61421179 )C, 0xbe9a561ea78e8a99, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0898 (38:17 real, -19.9787 ms/iter, ETA -18513:-37)
Iteration 5900000 M( 61421179 )C, 0xf0b569485eb57f09, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0898 (38:39 real, -19.7642 ms/iter, ETA -18281:-55)
Iteration 6000000 M( 61421179 )C, 0x751a61c23ceecb0a, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0898 (38:41 real, -19.7384 ms/iter, ETA -18225:-8)
Iteration 6100000 M( 61421179 )C, 0xbeffdc9a52d574ea, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0898 (38:42 real, -19.7337 ms/iter, ETA -18187:-55)
Iteration 6200000 M( 61421179 )C, 0xa1578637f58a58b0, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0898 (38:43 real, -19.7219 ms/iter, ETA -18144:-11)
Iteration 6300000 M( 61421179 )C, 0x9898ce608d2536fc, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0938 (39:03 real, -19.5186 ms/iter, ETA -17924:-36)
Iteration 6400000 M( 61421179 )C, 0x5cdf0c2904e43abd, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0938 (1:19:06 real, 4.5072 ms/iter, ETA 68:51:35)
Iteration 6500000 M( 61421179 )C, 0x86dd1dad33362fcb, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0938 (52:37 real, -11.3751 ms/iter, ETA -10408:-11)
Iteration 6600000 M( 61421179 )C, 0x843e48dc6e7c1cc6, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0938 (39:57 real, -18.9785 ms/iter, ETA -17333:-41)
Iteration 6700000 M( 61421179 )C, 0x23f5bcc088e1b383, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0938 (39:44 real, -19.1004 ms/iter, ETA -17413:-12)
[/Code]

kinda old bug.. we thought it was solved...
edit: it does not affect your results.

Are you using the newest version of 2.03? I though we fixed that also?

Anyway, use the new 2.05 just make sure you finish your current exponent as the savefiles/checkpoints are not compatible.

[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]owftheevil, ready to get 2.05 out of beta?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Yes, although the current form of the README file is not entirely accurate.

[QUOTE=owftheevil;378139]Yes, although the current form of the README file is not entirely accurate.[/QUOTE]
I can work the README file, did you have any more changes to incorporate before it's out of beta?

No, expect to take the "beta" out of the program variable.

[QUOTE=owftheevil;378139]Yes, although the current form of the README file is not entirely accurate.[/QUOTE]

+1 found out the hard way when the settings didn't all work, also most parameters inside CUDALucas.ini have no effect for v2.05beta; some require a different syntax structure than what is instructed inside the ini file.

Recent versions of the README and CUDALucas.ini are in the code directory on SourceForge. The README inaccuracies I'm referring to are more of a historical nature.

So now I am supposed to compile all the files in the code directory to get v2.05 windows or is v2.05Beta identical to v2.05 as in no bugs discovered in the Beta so no changes were madea for the release?

The windows versions are identical, the linux version is a little out of date.