firejuggler: yepp, I know (I receive automatic notices about new CUDA releases). You can expect new executables of mfaktc 0.18 using CUDA 4.1 soon.

MrRepunit: sorry, I haven't looked at your stuff yet. :sad:

Oliver

[QUOTE=Dubslow;286255]Here's the issues I've had over the last 4 months or so with drivers.
[url]http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=220802[/url][/QUOTE]
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!


I finally got the damn drivers to install.
[code]CUDA version info
binary compiled for CUDA 4.0
CUDA runtime version 4.10
CUDA driver version 4.10[/code]

Please take your time TheJudger, I've been without my GPU for a few weeks due to driver issues, I can wait a few more days :smile::smile:

mfaktc 0.18 - CUDA 4.1
 

Hello!

[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/mfaktc/mfaktc-0.18.win.cuda41.zip[/url]
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/mfaktc/mfaktc-0.18.linux64.cuda41.tar.gz[/url]

These executables are compiled with CUDA 4.1. The sourcecode is exactly the same than before so there is no need to repost the sourcecode. This version will use checkpoints from mfaktc 0.18 (CUDA 4.0)! CUDA 4.1 needs driver version 285 or newer.

If you're using a CC 1.x GPU than there is no need to update. [B]If you're using a GPU with CC 2.0 this update is recommended[/B] (the GPU code just runs a little bit faster!). And those with CC 2.1 can try it, too, but I expect that the performance difference is barely noticeable.

Oliver

-st2 completes without errors on a GTX 460 @ 875MHz, Win7-64 driver 290.53. I run the test on principle when there are any changes.

EDIT: Thanks for the updated version, Oliver.

Most excellent! I have a GTX570 and it was doing about 500M/s. Now it is hitting 540M/s.

Thanks,
Roy

[QUOTE=oswald;287676]Most excellent! I have a GTX570 and it was doing about 500M/s. Now it is hitting 540M/s.[/QUOTE]Just curious: with what SievePrimes and across how many instances? I ask because my GTX570 is doing around 400M/s at SP=5000, 2 instances, 71-72.

5000 SievePrimes, six instances, from 68-78. I7/920 running at 2.67 Ghz.
Each instance eating 12% of CPU with 1% to 2% wait time.
NumStreams=8 and CPUStreams=3. Affinity is not set.
batch - cmd.exe /c "start "mfaktc 5" /low mfaktc-win-64.exe -v 2"
Windows 7 Ult.

If I use the computer and run prime95 with one worker window, it drops to about 480M/s to 500M/s.

GPU Load is 99%, Fan 86%, Temp 86C to 88C. Voltage 1.075V, Clock 911 Mhz, Memory 2106 Mhz and Shader 1822 Mhz.

[QUOTE=oswald;287697]5000 SievePrimes, six instances, from 68-78. I7/920 running at 2.67 Ghz.[/QUOTE]How does your performance fare with 4 instances rather than 6? I suspect it wouldn't be much different, since you only have 4 cores to work with.

Also, on the topic that was raised before... any special reason you're taking these exponents abnormally high (to 2^78)?

Six seems the fastest for me. Four and Five are a little slower, maybe 4% or 5%. Seven about the same, but more cpu time is wasted and Eight is slower with 100% cpu used.

I'm going to drop back to 72 when I'm done with the current 77 and a few 74s. I just wanted a couple to see if the program would process the larger bits faster or slower. I didn't see any difference.

Also I thought it would be cool. It wasn't.

[QUOTE=oswald;287709]Six seems the fastest for me. Four and Five are a little slower, maybe 4% or 5%. Seven about the same, but more cpu time is wasted and Eight is slower with 100% cpu used.

I'm going to drop back to 72 when I'm done with the current 77 and a few 74s. I just wanted a couple to see if the program would process the larger bits faster or slower. I didn't see any difference.

Also I thought it would be cool. It wasn't.[/QUOTE]

So, did you find any factors above 72?

[QUOTE=flashjh;287710]So, did you find any factors above 72?[/QUOTE]

45385591,73

Just one. So it would seem that 72 is the sweet spot.

I've seen some TFs go by to 81. Anyone get any factors above 73?