[QUOTE=LaurV;309945]@Oliver: small cosmetic for 0.19 less classes version (I only tested win64): it still displays 4620 classes (like 0/4620, 1/4620 .... 419/4620). better check that compiler option against hard coded screen messages :razz: Otherwise, it seems to work wonderfully well.[/QUOTE]

Well, you can adjust this in mfaktc.ini, it is a runtime option. But you're right, I should have adjusted this in the default config.

Oliver

Are they [B]real world situations[/B] where a single core of a CPU can't feed a single CC 1.x GPU (running mfaktc, ofcourse)?

Oliver

P.S. I'm not talking about a theoretical rig with a crappy Netburst P4 on low clocks driving a Hyperclocked GTX 285 running very low exponents.

[QUOTE=TheJudger;310289]Are they [B]real world situations[/B] where a single core of a CPU can't feed a single CC 1.x GPU (running mfaktc, ofcourse)?[/QUOTE]I guess I live where real world meets theory: I'm playing with small TF on large exponents (2[sup]64[/sup] on >1000M) and mfaktc thrashes madly to try and keep up.

On 8800GT (CC 1.1) with i7-920 @3.2GHz, two mfaktc instances get 98% GPU usage, but at SP=2000 and "wait" value of about 55.

On GTX 570 (CC 2.0) on i7-3930K @ 4.2GHz it's a similar story in this range, it takes 3 instances at SP=2000 to get up to 96% GPU usage, but overall throughput is better with 6 instances.

Both examples running v0.19-lessclasses; Grid=0 on the 8800GT and Grid=3 on the GTX 570.

And yes, I know this doesn't really qualify as "real world" usage, but since you asked... :smile:

the performance of my machine
sbe 3930k at 3.5ghz with a gtx580 at 810mhz
mfaktc v0.19 lessclasses
default-mfaktc.ini
exponents about 865400000
bit 65 to 66
6 instances
about 13 seconds per candidate
gpu at 98%

the performance of
q6600 with gtx260
one instance
--
0.19
Factor=N/A,370000123,65,66
45m/sec
1:20min
gpu 64%
--
0.19 lessclasses
Factor=N/A,370000123,65,66
59m/sec
45 sec
gpu 88%
--

I think the time may have come to no longer worry much about optimizing mfaktc for CC 1.X GPUs.

[QUOTE=Prime95;310325]I think the time may have come to no longer worry much about optimizing mfaktc for CC 1.X GPUs.[/QUOTE]

My poor S1070. :cry:

[QUOTE=Prime95;310325]I think the time may have come to no longer worry much about optimizing mfaktc for CC 1.X GPUs.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing it won't be long now until the code is integrated into Prime95?

[QUOTE=ixfd64;310905]I'm guessing it won't be long now until the code is integrated into Prime95?[/QUOTE]

I have no intention of doing that. I had thought about defining a plug-in interface for programs like mfaktc, but I've been sidetracked doing other work.

So does this mean Prime95 won't have built-in GPU code in the short term?

[QUOTE=ixfd64;310937]So does this mean Prime95 won't have built-in GPU code in the short term?[/QUOTE]

The problem really is independent development. It's impractical to release a new Prime95 every time TheJudger or Bdot release a new mfakt* version. That would be the idea of a plug-in interface, but such a thing is decidedly non-trivial.