[QUOTE=TheJudger;311146]The current development (0.20) does not run very well (slow performance) on CC 1.x GPUs [B]iff[/B] sieving is done on [B]G[/B]PU.
There will be new kernels in mfaktc 0.20 and depending on the factor size (above 2[SUP]76[/SUP]) you'll notice a performance improvement even on CC 1.x GPUs.
...
P.S. thank you George and rcv for GPU sieving, thank you George for the new kernels :smile:[/QUOTE]

How does this affect ones decision on which nvidia card to acquire moving forward?
CC vs. raw speed??

[QUOTE=RichD;320836]How does this affect ones decision on which nvidia card to acquire moving forward?
CC vs. raw speed??[/QUOTE]

For maximum speed, get CC 2.0 (not 2.1). That means a 570 or a 580 (most of the lower cards in 5xx are CC 2.1). The most recent series, 6xx, are all CC 3.0, and all suck at CUDA, and are more expensive to boot. Like a 560 Ti (with extra cores) [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php?sort=ghdpd&noA=1"]can keep pace[/URL] with a 680 (despite being CC 2.1).

Btw, is it really true that a 570 gets almost the same performance as a 580 for a fraction of the cost?

Sure. I was talking about this long before [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php"]this[/URL] and [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php?sort=jvr"]this[/URL] appeared (see the sorting of the table, for the last link). Batalov and others said too. At that time I said that instead of buying 2x580, the best compromise money/performance/electricity was to take 4 pieces of (Asus) "560 Ti Top" (which is in fact a 570 with some features cut, and overclocked to 1G or 950M, you get the same performance as a 570 due to overclock, for about same consumption, and lower price) and fill a Rampage or whatever 4-pci-e-slots board with them. Then with the money left you still can pay the electricity, therefore running them "for free" for few weeks.

[QUOTE]Btw, is it really true that a 570 gets almost the same performance as a 580 for a fraction of the cost?[/QUOTE]We heard of some weird guy who ran just four 570 cards for a while and that was enough to take him to #2 lifetime overall (at the time) for TF.

:mike:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;320851]We heard of some weird guy who ran just four 570 cards for a while and that was enough to take him to #2 lifetime overall (at the time) for TF.

:mike:[/QUOTE]

Yeah I have heard of him :smile: I think his electric supplyer came whith a bunch of flowers on his birthday?! :no:

So when sieving is moved to the GPU, CC still rules.

(I wouldn't think much arithmetic is needed in sieving, that's the reason for the question.) :smile:

With regards to the output, another idea is to split some of the headings into two lines. For example, "candidates" could be changed to "Block\nsize" and "SievePrimes" could be changed to "Sieve\nsize" (or something similar). Just a thought.

[QUOTE=RichD;320836]How does this affect ones decision on which nvidia card to acquire moving forward?
CC vs. raw speed??[/QUOTE]

For mfaktc CC 2.0 still has the highest efficency (performance per (core * clock)) but Geforce GTX 670/680/690 (CC 3.0) are not that bad.
GTX 580 still has the highest performance per GPU but GTX 670/680/690 have higher performance per watt.

[CODE]Starting trial factoring M60xxxxxx from 2^72 to 2^73 (15.88 GHz-days)
[...]
no factor for M60xxxxxx from 2^72 to 2^73 [mfaktc 0.20-pre5 barrett76_mul32_gs]
tf(): total time spent: 1h 44m 46.991s
[/CODE]
[url=http://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/kepler/Tesla-K10-Board-Specification-BD-06280-001-v06.pdf]Tesla K10[/url] (just a lower clocked GTX 690) using GPU sieving (CPU usage is less than 1%), reports only 69W (Teslas can report power consumption). This is for one GPU (Tesla K10 has 2x GK104)
Tesla C2075 (lower clocked GF 110 like GTX 570/580) reports more than 150W. They are faster but not twice as fast as the K10...

[QUOTE=ixfd64;320804]I think the current default output is good as is, except maybe "SievePrimes" is a little long. Just "Sieve" is adequate.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ixfd64;320879]With regards to the output, another idea is to split some of the headings into two lines. For example, "candidates" could be changed to "Block\nsize" and "SievePrimes" could be changed to "Sieve\nsize" (or something similar). Just a thought.[/QUOTE]

Candidates and avg. rate are even harder to understand in mfaktc 0.20 because they have different meanings for CPU- and GPU sieving. That's why I want to remove them.

Oliver

Hi,

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;320799]This is what I've been using since it became configurable:[code]ProgressHeader= Date-Time Pct ETA | Exponent Bits | GHz-d/day Sieve Wait
ProgressFormat=%d %T %p %e | %M %l-%u | %g %s %W[/code][/QUOTE]

based on James configuration what do you think about this:[CODE]
ProgressHeader=Date Time Pct ETA | Exponent Bits | GHz-d/day Sieve Wait
ProgressFormat=%d %T %p %e | %M %l-%u | %g %s %W%%[/CODE]

And this is how it looks like[CODE]
Date Time Pct ETA | Exponent Bits | GHz-d/day Sieve Wait
Dec 15 18:15 5.7 16m34s | 66362159 70-71 | 295.36 82485 n.a.%
Dec 15 18:15 5.8 16m33s | 66362159 70-71 | 295.36 82485 n.a.%[/CODE]

When you don't like it, it is still userconfigurable.:grin:

Oliver

My (two cents thought) is to move anything that does not change to the title or header. No use outputting the same constants over again. That might free up some space on the status line.

My configuration is based on PrintMode=1 where there is only a single header and single current-status line.