Got a 1% boost on a GT 430, too.

I tried tweaking the GPU* configuration parameters to see if their optimal values changed but they seem to be the same.

Also, I noticed this is still in the mfaktc.ini file at least in the Linux source download:

# GPU sieving is supported on GPUs with compute capability 2.0 or higher.
# (e.g. Geforce 400 series or newer)

Thank you!
Installed on win7-64 bit with GTX760
both selftest were passed
~2% more output (from 266 -> 271)
(I changed 2 settings in the ini-file: GPUSieveSize to max 128
and GPUSieveProcessSize to min 8,
~10% more performance with my GTX760)

greetings

Matthias

[QUOTE=TheJudger;395689]Special thanks goes to Jerry Hallett who spent a lot time on building and testing Windows binaries as well as some hints for Windows compability. [B]Thank you Jerry![/B][/QUOTE]

You are welcome, my pleasure!

Awesome work Oliver!

[QUOTE=MatWur-S530113;395705]Thank you!
Installed on win7-64 bit with GTX760
both selftest were passed
~2% more output (from 266 -> 271)
(I changed 2 settings in the ini-file: GPUSieveSize to max 128
and GPUSieveProcessSize to min 8,
~10% more performance with my GTX760)

greetings

Matthias[/QUOTE]

I've found that my GTX 760 also benefits from a slightly higher GPUSievePrimes value than default. I have mine set to 100000.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;395707]I've found that my GTX 760 also benefits from a slightly higher GPUSievePrimes value than default. I have mine set to 100000.[/QUOTE]


I quickly testet some values for GPUSievePrimes (k*10000 for k=5..13, only a few classes per test),
but it seems that for my card the default-value of 82486 is indeed the best,
Between 70000 and 100000 no measurable difference, larger differences to the default-value
are resulting in a worse performance (but still not remarkable, maybe 1%)
Very large and very low values for GPUSievePrimes slow down my card up to 50%.

[QUOTE=MatWur-S530113;395712]I quickly testet some values for GPUSievePrimes (k*10000 for k=5..13, only a few classes per test),
but it seems that for my card the default-value of 82486 is indeed the best,
Between 70000 and 100000 no measurable difference, larger differences to the default-value
are resulting in a worse performance (but still not remarkable, maybe 1%)
Very large and very low values for GPUSievePrimes slow down my card up to 50%.[/QUOTE]

I'll fiddle with mine again to verify it's better than the default.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;395707]I've found that my GTX 760 also benefits from a slightly higher GPUSievePrimes value than default. I have mine set to 100000.[/QUOTE]

I've never really fiddled with the options but I believe you've done a bit more.

Which options do I want to be messing around with to try to increase throughput?

[QUOTE=TheMawn;395717]I've never really fiddled with the options but I believe you've done a bit more.

Which options do I want to be messing around with to try to increase throughput?[/QUOTE]

GPUSieveProcessSize
GPUSieveSize
GPUSievePrimes

I would do them in that order.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;395719]GPUSieveProcessSize
GPUSieveSize
GPUSievePrimes

I would do them in that order.[/QUOTE]

Do they need to be bigger or smaller, or does it tend to be a bit of both?

[QUOTE=TheMawn;395721]Do they need to be bigger or smaller, or does it tend to be a bit of both?[/QUOTE]

Depends on the card.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;395721]Do they need to be bigger or smaller, or does it tend to be a bit of both?[/QUOTE]
(for maximum performance, in my experience)

GPUSieveProcessSize: (probably) bigger
GPUSieveSize: (probably) bigger
GPUSievePrimes: just right

Experiment to find the best values for your GPU, Mersenne number size, and bit depth. If you use your GPU to drive a display, responsiveness becomes a concern, too, and dialing back the first two values may be necessary. I use [URL="https://github.com/Mini-Geek/mfaktx-controller"]a tool I wrote[/URL] to automatically switch the GPUSieveSize between a few values to trade off responsiveness and speed, based on what I'm doing (when idle, 128; common usage, 32; most games, 8; some games, stopped).