[QUOTE=kriesel;496266]Note also there's no work or results coordination site for Mersenne hunting at exponents above 2[SUP]32[/SUP].[/QUOTE]Mostly because there's no GPU program I know of that supports large exponents.
But as you say, there's a lot of work before that point. Something in the order of 18,000,000,000,000 GHz-days of TF effort just between 10[sup]9[/sup] and 2[sup]32[/sup] exponents (not counting what's still left in the current <1000M PrimeNet range).

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;496269]Mostly because there's no GPU program I know of that supports large exponents.
But as you say, there's a lot of work before that point. Something in the order of 18,000,000,000,000 GHz-days of TF effort just between 10[sup]9[/sup] and 2[sup]32[/sup] exponents (not counting what's still left in the current <1000M PrimeNet range).[/QUOTE]
So in other words, about 18 billion GTX1080-days, plus about 2 billion for the up to a billion exponent, 20 billion total GTX1080-days, and the aggregate throughput seen by PrimeNet of all of GIMPS amounts to about 150 to 180 GTX1080s at 1000GhzD/day (past day or month). 2x10[SUP]10[/SUP]/180/365 = 304,000 years. We're counting significantly on Moore's Law to get through that in a century or so. (Something above 11 doublings, soon, which is not justified by current feature sizes and practical further scaling downward.)

[QUOTE=kriesel]Re your GTX1080, how do you know you don't simply have very good cooling? What does TechPowerUp GPU-Z or CPUID HWMonitor say about gpu % load and reasons for it being less than 95-100%? Are you running high enough bit depths, and/or the less-classes version, or running on a solid state disk, so that I/O is not limiting throughput?[/QUOTE]

Less-classes for [I]James Heinrich's[/I] project. GPU-Z says 98% load. I told James I would finish the 3990M group to 2[SUP]71[/SUP], and I will. Very good cooling? This case has four fans which are rather noisy. So, yes, there is good cooling. SSD, no, but the next best thing, a RAM drive, at James' suggestion.

The extended limit for factoring was a passing thought. There used to be a member here named Luigi, a.k.a. E.T. Back in 2007, he wrote a little program called [I]Factor5[/I]. It is not used much now. I tried to find a ceiling for what it would accept as an exponent and a bit depth. I stopped trying after giving it a 19-digit exponent and a bit depth of 2[SUP]120[/SUP].

I asked myself why would he make the limits so high. The only answer I could come up with is that there would be no need to modify it again. There is a bit of sense in that.

18-trillion GHz-Days in what's available now. I can believe that. :smile:

[QUOTE=storm5510;496278]There used to be a member here named Luigi, a.k.a. E.T. Back in 2007, he wrote a little program called [I]Factor5[/I]. It is not used much now. I tried to find a ceiling for what it would accept as an exponent and a bit depth. I stopped trying after giving it a 19-digit exponent and a bit depth of 2[SUP]120[/SUP].

I asked myself why would he make the limits so high. The only answer I could come up with is that there would be no need to modify it again. There is a bit of sense in that.

18-trillion GHz-Days in what's available now. I can believe that. :smile:[/QUOTE]

The only limit for Factor5 is the sky... and your RAM. Using mpz_t elementys slows down the calculation, but keeps the app updated with Moore's law. And it's already suitable to sieve the 16 residual classes mod 60 in parallel. So, you can make ypur exponent (and your factor size) grow as long as you have memory to allocate :smile:

[QUOTE=ET_;496303]The only limit for Factor5 is the sky... and your RAM. Using mpz_t elementys slows down the calculation, but keeps the app updated with Moore's law. And it's already suitable to sieve the 16 residual classes mod 60 in parallel. So, you can make ypur exponent (and your factor size) grow as long as you have memory to allocate :smile:[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the reply.

It can really work a CPU, depending on what you give it. It sends the temperature on my i7-7700 into the mid 70's on the C scale when running hard.

Question: Why does it say "banned" just below your user name?

[QUOTE=storm5510;496312]Thank you for the reply.

It can really work a CPU, depending on what you give it. It sends the temperature on my i7-7700 into the mid 70's on the C scale when running hard.

Question: Why does it say "banned" just below your user name?[/QUOTE]

Oh! I'not sure either :smile: I guess it is a comment of the super-supermod once I was whining too much on a past thread...

Haven't been here in a while, need your help regarding issues with CUDA driver compatibility.

Recently swapped a 1080TI with a TITAN V, getting
[CODE]ERROR: cudaGetLastError() returned 8: invalid device function[/CODE]

Output from mfaktc-win-64.exe is as follows:
[CODE]Compiletime options
THREADS_PER_BLOCK 256
SIEVE_SIZE_LIMIT 32kiB
SIEVE_SIZE 193154bits
SIEVE_SPLIT 250
MORE_CLASSES enabled

Runtime options
SievePrimes 25000
SievePrimesAdjust 1
SievePrimesMin 5000
SievePrimesMax 100000
NumStreams 3
CPUStreams 3
GridSize 3
GPU Sieving enabled
GPUSievePrimes 82486
GPUSieveSize 64Mi bits
GPUSieveProcessSize 16Ki bits
Checkpoints enabled
CheckpointDelay 30s
WorkFileAddDelay 600s
Stages enabled
StopAfterFactor bitlevel
PrintMode full
V5UserID (none)
ComputerID (none)
AllowSleep no
TimeStampInResults no

CUDA version info
binary compiled for CUDA 8.0
CUDA runtime version 8.0
CUDA driver version 9.20

CUDA device info
name TITAN V
compute capability 7.0
max threads per block 1024
max shared memory per MP 98304 byte
number of multiprocessors 80
clock rate (CUDA cores) 1455MHz
memory clock rate: 850MHz
memory bus width: 3072 bit

Automatic parameters
threads per grid 655360
GPUSievePrimes (adjusted) 82486
GPUsieve minimum exponent 1055144

running a simple selftest...
ERROR: cudaGetLastError() returned 8: invalid device function
[/CODE]

Tried:
- Clean install of both Display Driver and CUDA
- CUDA 8.0 GA1
- CUDA 8.0 GA2

Still displaying CUDA driver version 9.20. Unable to match CUDA driver version with 8.0 despite efforts to reinstall driver.

Any help is appreciated!

[QUOTE=nofaith628;496342]running a simple selftest...
ERROR: cudaGetLastError() returned 8: invalid device function

- Clean install of both Display Driver and CUDA
- CUDA 8.0 GA1
- CUDA 8.0 GA2

Still displaying CUDA driver version 9.20. Unable to match CUDA driver version with 8.0 despite efforts to reinstall driver.

Any help is appreciated![/QUOTE]

Are you getting any unexpected system restarts?

[I]mfaktc[/I] displays the same, 8.0, 8.0, 9.20 for my 1080 and it runs fine.

[QUOTE=storm5510;496370]Are you getting any unexpected system restarts?

[I]mfaktc[/I] displays the same, 8.0, 8.0, 9.20 for my 1080 and it runs fine.[/QUOTE]

No unexpected system restarts as far I have ran mfaktc on this system. Switched the graphics card back to the 1080TI, running smoothly as always. Switching the card to a TITAN V, the error pops up.

On an another machine, mfaktc displays 8.0, 8.0, 9.20 for 1080 and 1080TI, running smoothly without issues.

Clean uninstallations of the CUDA driver and the Display Driver with the help of Revo Uninstaller, along with several restarts, and blocking the internet to prevent auto updates, have failed. There must be some files left in the computer that was not deleted during the uninstalling process. The CUDA driver version still shows 9.20.

@nofaith628
I heartily endorse Revo Uninstaller, which I use. To check on other remnants, you might try jv16 Power Tools. [url]https://www.macecraft.com/download/[/url]
I have used it even longer than Revo. It is good at unearthing lingering bits in the registry.

[QUOTE=nofaith628;496380]No unexpected system restarts as far I have ran mfaktc on this system. Switched the graphics card back to the 1080TI, running smoothly as always. Switching the card to a TITAN V, the error pops up.

On an another machine, mfaktc displays 8.0, 8.0, 9.20 for 1080 and 1080TI, running smoothly without issues.

Clean uninstallations of the CUDA driver and the Display Driver with the help of Revo Uninstaller, along with several restarts, and blocking the internet to prevent auto updates, have failed. There must be some files left in the computer that was not deleted during the uninstalling process. The CUDA driver version still shows 9.20.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure Windows isn't updating the driver again, perhaps from some local stored content? ("System restore" etc)

[URL]https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_8-hardware/how-to-disable-windows-update-from-auto-updating/8f5a50fd-403b-4207-bcf2-20cd32f4b1e9[/URL]

search disabling windows driver updates for other articles that may help