[QUOTE=Brian-E;308047]But to be clear and up-front for the moment: if we're thinking on CO2 grounds, then we should be welcoming participants who run prime95/mprime in the background on a machine which they use for other things, and then turn off their machine when it is not in use.[/QUOTE]

That was my comment about C-states; it used to be that running prime95 in the background found prime numbers, slowly, whilst not changing the amount of electricity that a computer used. Now it finds prime numbers while forcing the computer to run at full-power rather than idle-power state during the delays between keystrokes or the delays between decompressing frames of video.

Basically, modern computers are not all that far from being turned off when not in use.

A participants running prime95 in such a way that it takes four years to finish a number, on a computer that they throw away after three years, has achieved nothing for quite a lot of CO2.

[QUOTE=LaurV;307228]in fact 14/19/74 right now...[/QUOTE]
Well, for whou still keeps the scores, and to come back to the topic: [B]12/17/67[/B] in this very moment....:smile:

[QUOTE=c10ck3r;308045]0% Says they just don't care and are putting "NO" effort into it, as opposed to the 11% exponent. If anyone beats me to it, that's fine, it is running on a Pent D 940 3.2GHz 24/7 background.[/QUOTE]

Think of the planet! That Pentium D uses about 320 watts when running flat-out; leave the egg to someone with an IVB, who will cook it with AVX about five times faster and for about 40% of the power consumption, so 8% of the joules.

[QUOTE=fivemack;308048]That was my comment about C-states; it used to be that running prime95 in the background found prime numbers, slowly, whilst not changing the amount of electricity that a computer used. Now it finds prime numbers while forcing the computer to run at full-power rather than idle-power state during the delays between keystrokes or the delays between decompressing frames of video.

Basically, modern computers are not all that far from being turned off when not in use.

A participants running prime95 in such a way that it takes four years to finish a number, on a computer that they throw away after three years, has achieved nothing for quite a lot of CO2.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the explanation. I didn't understand your original comment completely because I didn't know what C-states were.

I run mprime on a PC which is more than 5 years old and does not, I believe, use significantly less electricity when idle than it does when I have video-intensive processes running. I shut it down when I am not personally using it. So it typically takes me 6-8 weeks to do a LL double-check in the 25-30M exponent range. Or, as at the moment, 6-7 months for my 45M exponent first time LL test. I wonder how typical or atypical I am of a slow-but-steady participant. Should I be encouraged to continue for the sake of the planet?:unsure:

[QUOTE=fivemack;308050]Think of the planet! That Pentium D uses about 320 watts when running flat-out; leave the egg to someone with an IVB, who will cook it with AVX about five times faster and for about 40% of the power consumption, so 8% of the joules.[/QUOTE]
Remember that in our part of the world, we use space heating for most of the year. If this energy can do some FLOPS in the process, what is there to lose?

D

[QUOTE=Prime95;307882]I added them for you[/QUOTE]

Thanks. Here are 2 more below 1M, I *think* they are the last, but it can be hard to track them down. Those above 1M accepts tripplechecks fine.

[CODE][Thu Aug 16 00:54:46 2012]
Iteration 250000 / 933349
Iteration 500000 / 933349
Iteration 750000 / 933349
UID: athath/quad, M933349 is not prime. Res64: 5486057ACDC3390B. We4: 0D0C6262,386466,00000000
Iteration 250000 / 952141
[Thu Aug 16 01:00:15 2012]
Iteration 500000 / 952141
Iteration 750000 / 952141
UID: athath/quad, M952141 is not prime. Res64: 7CFC94210DE876E0. We4: 090E3155,629627,00000000
[/CODE]

I tried one close to 1M too, just picked a random one from my list to see the time would take. FWIW, you may mark it as TC'ed if is not already:
[CODE]M900649 is not prime. Res64: 3C1184738744A703. We1: 5DF66B9E,602004,00000000[/CODE]

What's the site that has the computer running through all the exponents sequentially? Couldn't you see how far that one has gone and assume everything up to that point is TC'd? Or do you need matching residues?

[QUOTE=bcp19;308130]What's the site that has the computer running through all the exponents sequentially? Couldn't you see how far that one has gone and assume everything up to that point is TC'd? Or do you need matching residues?[/QUOTE]
I don't think that he is saving his residues. He certainly is not reporting them.
[url]http://neoview.kicks-ass.net/mersenne/[/url]
He ins only at 561181, which is still a long way from 756,839.

[QUOTE=fivemack;308046]I think that on pure CO2 grounds it would be wise to make an explicit point of rejecting such contributions. Getting a result for a gigajoule (two months on a 200W machine) is at most half as good as getting the same result for half a gigajoule.
[/QUOTE]

Aha! You make an assumption there my friend that this is a slow computer that is on all or most of the time. This is a fast computer that is on rarely. So there.

August 27, 2012. All exponents below [B]25[/B] million have been double-checked.