Hi,

OK, unless I've calculated something wrong here are the numbers.
As before the time for a single class for 2[SUP]70[/SUP] to 2[SUP]71[/SUP] is T and it doubles for each bitlevel (ignoring that different kernels will be used):

2[SUP]70[/SUP] to 2[SUP]74[/SUP]
StopAfterFactor=0: T[SUB]average[/SUB] = 14400 = (1 + 2 + 4 + 8) * 960
StopAfterFactor=2, Stages=0: T[SUB]average[/SUB] = ~14003.078
StopAfterFactor=2, Stages=1: T[SUB]average[/SUB] = ~13847.314

The difference is not that big but keep in mind that additionally the selected kernel can make a big difference. A really worse case: 2[SUP]78[/SUP] to 2[SUP]80[/SUP]
With Stages=0 mfaktc will choose to slow 95bit kernel [B]without[/B] GPU sieving support.
With Stages=1 mfaktc will choose barrett87 for each bitlevel including GPU sieving support.

Technically GPU sieving is possible for the older kernels... but why should somebody spent time on these old and slow kernels?
Barrett87,88 and 92 can only handle single bitlevels at the time
So usually Stages=1 is what you want!

Oliver

I've set Stages=1 (in light of the info above)

This is typical for my 580s in the 61M range:

[QUOTE=rjbelans;325660]I'm running 0.20, but I did play with some settings in the .ini file and my CPU is at a constant 90% + usage because of the other things running. Once the current units are completed, after I get home from work tonight, I will try running with no other programs and I'll put the settings back to defaults.[/QUOTE]

CPU shouldn't affect it as much as LaurV says. I ran mfaktc with full CPU usage and no CPU usage, and noticed maybe a 1 Eq. GHz drop, from like 206 to 205. That doesn't explain your half-performance discrepancy.

[QUOTE=Andi_HB;325668]The GTX 560 Performance is listed with 205 GHz-days/day but this is only with the default settings.

I have decreased the GPUSieveProcessSize=8
and increased the GPUSieveSieveSize=128

This increased my GhzDays from 205 to 268 on the GTX 560 with mfaktc 0.20

:D

(Win 7, 64bit)[/QUOTE]

Brilliant! I, of course, had to reduce the sieve size down to its minimum as well, to keep screen lag minimal :razz: (throughput was ~185 Eq. GHz at those settings).

Nice try redacting that exponent out. Too bad k_min and k_max are giving it away. :devil:

:blush:

Is there a reason to keep exponents secret? Have there been attacks or malware built that targets TFers working certain ranges? Am I in danger?:sos:

[QUOTE=swl551;325714]Is there a reason to keep exponents secret? Have there been attacks or malware built that targets TFers working certain ranges? Am I in danger?:sos:[/QUOTE]

A very few people have found themselves the subject of targeted "poaching". Usually in the LLing domain, however.

Those doing serious TFing probably wouldn't even notice if they were poached. And if they did, probably wouldn't care all that much other than possibly wondering why.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;325703]CPU shouldn't affect it as much as LaurV says. I ran mfaktc with full CPU usage and no CPU usage, and noticed maybe a 1 Eq. GHz drop, from like 206 to 205. That doesn't explain your half-performance discrepancy.[/QUOTE]

It was the settings in the .ini file. After I put everything back to defaults, each core is getting about 325 for a total of 1300GHz-d/day.

[QUOTE=rjbelans;325719]It was the settings in the .ini file. After I put everything back to defaults, each core is getting about 325 for a total of 1300GHz-d/day.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/thats-funny/1"]I assume you kept a copy of the .ini file which was causing you trouble[/URL]?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;325703]CPU shouldn't affect it as much as LaurV says. I ran mfaktc with full CPU usage and no CPU usage, and noticed maybe a 1 Eq. GHz drop, from like 206 to 205.[/QUOTE]
Try decreasing the priority of mfaktc or increasing the priority of p95 :razz: till they have both the same chance to grab the CPU ticks. Of course if P95 works in iddle mode, mfaktc does not wait for it...
Edit: Disclaimer: don't do that at home! :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;325720][URL="http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/thats-funny/1"]I assume you kept a copy of the .ini file which was causing you trouble[/URL]?[/QUOTE]

You shouldn't ass.u.me anything! :razz:

Essentially, I set the last few settings to their maximum number to see what it would do. I would suggest not doing that.