[QUOTE=oswald;287713]I've seen some TFs go by to 81. Anyone get any factors above 73?[/QUOTE]

Speaking only from the [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/factoring_cost/"]GPU72 dataset[/URL], no. Also, I thought this query might be of interest:

[CODE]mysql> select Exponent,WorkType,Factor,BitLevel,GHzDays from Facts where BitLevel>72 and BitLevel<73 order by BitLevel;
+----------+----------+------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Exponent | WorkType | Factor | BitLevel | GHzDays |
+----------+----------+------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| 49038349 | 2 | 4801848565079148256831 | 72.0240783691 | 3.1368792057 |
| 48402157 | 2 | 4924923229320807180241 | 72.0605926514 | 3.0787878036 |
| 52391939 | 2 | 5129368153807159288753 | 72.1192703247 | 3.6857914925 |
| 51856367 | 2 | 5260403915947198114753 | 72.1556625366 | 3.6537399292 |
| 50645029 | 2 | 5661793507001515858399 | 72.2617492676 | 3.4019815922 |
| 50113633 | 2 | 5686252493318912556919 | 72.2679672241 | 3.3713331223 |
| 46088459 | 2 | 5699536457216611369993 | 72.2713317871 | 2.9335625172 |
| 57124637 | 2 | 5699667324436008230441 | 72.2713699341 | 4.4322924614 |
| 58727143 | 2 | 6032238348257590709041 | 72.3531799316 | 4.7944402695 |
| 49172281 | 2 | 6118314734795051557889 | 72.3736267090 | 3.3100326061 |
| 47377471 | 2 | 6214261243217069278799 | 72.3960723877 | 3.0206968784 |
| 51279133 | 1 | 6246983672197511925169 | 72.4036483765 | 34.9744110107 |
| 51891943 | 2 | 6274529751550608502601 | 72.4099960327 | 3.6537446976 |
| 52377517 | 2 | 6288072527920072455497 | 72.4131088257 | 3.6857895851 |
| 47634437 | 2 | 6562788825323273521183 | 72.4748001099 | 3.0497453213 |
| 49577639 | 2 | 6933287551485680909593 | 72.5540313721 | 3.3406801224 |
| 51789487 | 2 | 7277402504460056581103 | 72.6239166260 | 3.6537451744 |
| 51836971 | 2 | 7542321801724532859601 | 72.6754989624 | 3.6537442207 |
| 48794531 | 2 | 7632349113139487255599 | 72.6926193237 | 3.1078319550 |
| 49685179 | 2 | 7761122876680074100649 | 72.7167587280 | 3.3406836987 |
| 50415769 | 2 | 7944599695223051338921 | 72.7504653931 | 3.4019765854 |
| 52987387 | 1 | 8081154896226789542663 | 72.7750549316 | 33.8468780518 |
| 51959269 | 2 | 8475377849335575069007 | 72.8437652588 | 3.6537444592 |
| 51901393 | 2 | 8512615206095183396513 | 72.8500900269 | 3.6537411213 |
| 49090681 | 2 | 8605111745487297296833 | 72.8656845093 | 3.1368756294 |
| 45385591 | 1 | 8844916506899498728081 | 72.9053421021 | 40.8332138062 |
| 52352803 | 2 | 9024358165365373833857 | 72.9343109131 | 3.6857903004 |
| 47967737 | 1 | 9076742576732763259807 | 72.9426651001 | 29.9110641479 |
| 51739159 | 2 | 9080527408501786785767 | 72.9432678223 | 3.6216900349 |
| 48055169 | 2 | 9236283448528736895481 | 72.9678039551 | 3.0497450829 |
| 52950509 | 2 | 9247535348527498365463 | 72.9695587158 | 3.7178452015 |
+----------+----------+------------------------+---------------+---------------+
31 rows in set (0.01 sec)[/CODE]

Note that WorkType==1 is TF; ==2 is P-1.

[QUOTE=oswald;287713]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?[/QUOTE]

Here's one:

[CODE]M72000209 has a factor: 10234577977625536865383
found 1 factor(s) for M72000209 from 2^73 to 2^74[/CODE]

This exponent and the level were requested from outside GPU to 72.

Wow, so much really wonderful information to look at. It's hard for me to remember all the good places to look.
Thank you!

List of all nVidia chips and their CC (Compute Cabability): [URL="http://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus"]http://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus[/URL]

They didn't list the "560 Ti 448 core" but it is a slightly disabled 570 (with 2.0); in a couple days, I'll be able to test it.

[QUOTE=Batalov;288048]They didn't list the "560 Ti 448 core" but it is a slightly disabled 570 (with 2.0); in a couple days, I'll be able to test it.[/QUOTE]
Not really. It is more an "experimental", or "engineering sample" of a "new 560", where they want to increase the number of cores and reduce the price. They have trouble with increasing the clock and heat. Nvidia list it [URL="http://www.geforce.com/Hardware/GPUs/geforce-gtx-560ti/specifications"]here[/URL]. I tested one, standard clock, and for the same money you can grab a 560@950MHz which is really REALLY much MUCH faster (about 28% faster!).

[QUOTE=LaurV;288052]for the same money you can grab a 560@950MHz which is really REALLY much MUCH faster (about 28% faster!).[/QUOTE]For gaming, perhaps, but the GTX 560Ti 448 is very desirable for mfaktc over any other GTX 560 because (like the GTX 570) it is compute 2.0, whereas the regular GTX 560 is v2.1 which may sound better, but is roughly 50% slower at mfaktc.

At stock clocks, the 560Ti448 has marginally higher GFLOPS than the 560Ti (1312 vs 1263), but [url=http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/mfaktc.php?sort=model&noA=1]expected daily throughput with mfaktc[/url] is 262 vs 168 GHz-days/day.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;288054]For gaming, perhaps, but the GTX 560Ti 448 is very desirable for mfaktc over any other GTX 560 because (like the GTX 570) it is compute 2.0, whereas the regular GTX 560 is v2.1 which may sound better, but is roughly 50% slower at mfaktc.

At stock clocks, the 560Ti448 has marginally higher GFLOPS than the 560Ti (1312 vs 1263), but [url=http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/mfaktc.php?sort=model&noA=1]expected daily throughput with mfaktc[/url] is 262 vs 168 GHz-days/day.[/QUOTE]

<offtopic>
When you sort the GHz-d/d column on your website, it does string compare instead of numerical compare.
</offtopic>

[QUOTE=KyleAskine;288080]When you sort the GHz-d/d column on your website, it does string compare instead of numerical compare.[/QUOTE]Hmm, that's embarrassing... fixed now :smile:

Thanks for that.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;287602]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:[/QUOTE]

I can't find the head bashing emoticon. It seems it was too good to be true; after the 'successful' install, Ubuntu then refused to boot properly. I'm back to nvidia-current and 270.* until either that package upgrades or I can get this truly fixed. I don't know why it won't just do it correctly. So, I still can't run mfatkc in Linux

Stupid nvidia drivers.