Thanks c10ck3r. :smile:

I wish I had that kind of CPU power! You're right, I use mfakto on my pretty-poor GPU. I would contribute to GPU72, but it takes longer to work on those higher assignments than I like. I know that working on these cleared exponents isn't the best use of computing power, but I have enjoyed working on this range very much.

Another two factors found! That's 6 factors in about three days.

EDIT: GPU sieving does seem possible with mfakto on these assignments, but it is far poorer than CPU sieving. I get about 18 GHzD with GPU sieving versus 32 with CPU.

[QUOTE=Jayder;350598]but I have enjoyed working on this range very much.[/QUOTE]

then it is the best use of your computing power!

[QUOTE=c10ck3r;350594]Sorry, I should have been more clear. They can't harness the major boost of GPU sieving is what I should have said. 24 GHD/Day on these vs. 146 GHD/Day for more aptly suited assignments on my 460.[/QUOTE]

I guess mfakto is more suited for low exponents. 4,067,831 63 to 64 160 GHz days, LL range 185 GHz days on my low end 7770.

P-1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=725000, B2=16131250.
UID: Jwb52z/Clay, M67065541 has a factor: 76349158343590058965217

76.015 bits.

P-1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=725000, B2=16131250.
UID: Jwb52z/Clay, M67072151 has a factor: 3940555598745788747327

71.739 bits.

[QUOTE=Prime95;350602][QUOTE=Jayder;350598]but I have enjoyed working on this range very much.[/QUOTE]

then it is the best use of your computing power![/QUOTE]I thoroughly agree!

[QUOTE=Jayder;350598]I know that working on these cleared exponents isn't the best use of computing power,[/QUOTE][I]On the contrary[/I]; as long as what you do is contributory, not needlessly duplicative or poaching, and is something you enjoy, it is [U]exactly[/U] the best use of your computing power. Don't let anyone else convince you otherwise.

If you [U]want[/U] to do what is "best for GIMPS" according to some particular measure of efficiency or usefulness, [I]that's fine -- but only if that's what you actually enjoy[/I].

Also, you might enjoy doing tasks that are most efficiently done [I]by the computing equipment at your disposal[/I], regardless of how "efficient" or "useful" that same work type might be considered to be when done on anyone else's system.

Here's where you can look up your CPU's relative throughput efficiencies at various ranges of FFT (LL, P-1, ECM) and TF work: [URL]http://www.mersenne.ca/throughput.php#[/URL]
(NOTE 1: [U]The CPU type selector may be at the BOTTOM OF THE PAGE on your monitor[/U] when you first arrive there, then after CPU selection and "GO" the report is appended after it.)
(NOTE 2: Though GPUs may do TF much faster than CPUs, that's only when you actually have a GPU that can do that.)

P-1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=725000, B2=16131250.
UID: Jwb52z/Clay, M67097413 has a factor: 1022076366171746780862193

79.758 bits.

Thank you cheesehead. Actually, I already make great use of that amazing site! Unfortunately, it seems that figuring out what exponent range and bit level my GPU is best suited for working on is a bit more difficult. I suppose the only current way to do that is through a lot of manual testing and retesting.

I've found another 11 factors since my last posting! I would post them here, but it seems the website is having problems at the moment, and I don't want to fill up this thread with small factors. If through ECM I land a big enough one to rival Jwb52z, I'll be sure to post it.

P-1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=725000, B2=16131250.
UID: Jwb52z/Clay, M67119197 has a factor: 36574009162770696221177

74.953 bits.

P-1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=570000, B2=10260000.
UID: Jwb52z/Clay, M64101173 has a factor: 50021421769047734872506504961

95.337 bits.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;349730]I ran it from 61 to 64 one day in 2009, came back months later, ran it to 66, a month after that ran it to 67, months after that, took it to 70.[/QUOTE]Had another one hit that I touched 4 times before.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;345608]Just improved my personal record:

BTW, for James H:
For some reason my previous best does not show up in my list of personal best factors on Mersenne.ca[/QUOTE]
I just improved my personal best again:
64,069,129 has a factor of 156110319012514871033075941441
98.397 bits
[B][I][FONT="Microsoft Sans Serif"]k[/FONT][/I][/B] = 3257202853157932887219 = 3[SUP]3[/SUP] × 11 × 337 × 49639 × 336983 × 1945483