[QUOTE=kracker;343549]We don't know of the performance of LL tests on AMD cards yet, but anyways looking on the CuLu benchmarks I don't know why I(only I probably) would run a LL test on a gpu, considering the speed is not a *huge* lot faster compared to a similar level cpu, and I could run TF on my gpu...[/QUOTE]

Aight. That's basically what I was saying, but better put. I'm glad someone understood. Basically, why run 2x faster LL if I can run 50x faster TF? This is why I think it might be worth coming back to trial factor an extra bit if we get far enough ahead of the wave. I would rather do work today to clear out tomorrow's exponents rather than next year's.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;343548]As I recall, that analysis is dependent on a GHz-Days-ish measure of how much work it is to trial factor vs LL-test.
...then it might make sense to go deeper with the TF than the analysis suggests.[/QUOTE]The oft-quoted [url=http://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php?model=487]analysis[/url] measures TF vs L-L both on a GPU. Currently that analysis assumes mfaktc vs CUDALucas, and ignores the P-1 on GPU part of the equation. When I get CUDALucas on AMD benchmarks, and CUDAPm1 becomes somewhat stable, I will attempt to rebalance the analysis.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;343507]I got a real kick out of how fast 65 to 66 went.

How does a person go about working on getting those exponents from 65 to 66? I don't see how it can be done through GPU72 because it will only let you factor to a minimum of 71.[/QUOTE]
2[SUP]74[/SUP]/2[SUP]66[/SUP] = 2[SUP]8[/SUP]
[QUOTE=chalsall;343510]One doesn't. At least currently.

GPU72's agenda is to help with the LL and DC (and now the "100M digits") wave-fronts. Thus, we carefully balance the available firepower with the available candidates, taking into consideration James' analysis as to how deep TFing makes sense.

Currently we're taking everything available in the 60M and above range to 74 "bits". I'm hoping we can start going to 75 bits at 64M or 65M.[/QUOTE]
As you may have noticed, Chris and I don't always agree on these matters.

Around 8.00 UTC I was assigned a 64M expo to LL.
Virgin territory.
ETA 20th Sept (~2Ghz Core2)
TFed to 74 and P-1 ed well (although I could have done this myself).
Yummy. 74 bits is one more than the sustainable level.

Guess what I intend to do with it.

[spoiler]Stick it up .........[/spoiler]

David

[QUOTE=TheMawn;343507]I suppose if trial factoring ever gets really, really far ahead of the wave, I may send my GPU to play with the big exponents for a while. As a test, I did 65 to 71 for something around 400 million and I got a real kick out of how fast 65 to 66 went.

How does a person go about working on getting those exponents from 65 to 66? I don't see how it can be done through GPU72 because it will only let you factor to a minimum of 71.[/QUOTE]

As has been mentioned by prior posts this may not be the best use of a GPU but if you simply select work type of TF-LHM it will assign you TF to 66 work in that range (currently 194M). If you really want 400M, for example I believe you have to get it manually ... but I have to guess the big players in these higher ranges probably wrote something of their own to do this: Players like (not meant to be all inclusive): monst, America64, Linded, cl0ck3r ... basically anyone who completes A LOT of TF results at once in those higher ranges according to: [url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_recent_cleared/[/url]

I regret to say this, but I'll be taking a semi-hiatus from the project until further notice. Due to the cost of electricity these days, I can no longer afford to keep my computers on for as long as I used to. I'll still be doing GPU factoring, but my throughput will be noticeably reduced. I hope everyone understands.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;345104]I hope everyone understands.[/QUOTE]

Of course. Thank you for what you've done, and what you might continue to do.

Agreed. Thanks for all you've done. :smile:

[QUOTE=petrw1;343614]As has been mentioned by prior posts this may not be the best use of a GPU but if you simply select work type of TF-LHM it will assign you TF to 66 work in that range (currently 194M). If you really want 400M, for example I believe you have to get it manually ... but I have to guess the big players in these higher ranges probably wrote something of their own to do this: Players like (not meant to be all inclusive): monst, America64, Linded, cl0ck3r ... basically anyone who completes A LOT of TF results at once in those higher ranges according to: [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_recent_cleared/[/URL][/QUOTE]
Tbh, I was a little amused to hear myself called a "big player" when I'm only running a GTX 460 plus a couple cores CPU power. As far as my method for doing bulk, I
1) create a report like this: [url]http://mersenne.org/report_factoring_effort/?exp_lo=666660000&exp_hi=666670000&bits_lo=0&bits_hi=999&txt=1&B1=Get+Data[/url]
2) Select all, copy, then paste into a blank worktodo.txt (Notepad)
3) Find/Replace, in this case "6666" with "Factor=6666"
4) Find/Replace ",," with ",xx", with xx as final bit depth desired.
5) Save, then run mfaktc.
Rinse, lather, repeat. I usually use mersenne.info's "Change" metric to pick a range with little or no recent activity. If I have a line like Factor=4601Factor=460123,65,66
I'll use F/R to replace xFactor= with x, for 9>=x>=0

If my .txt looks like this, does the second exponent just throw and error and the program moves on? That would be a decent way to try to factor everything to a specific depth and leave everything else behind.

666665983,68,70,
666666071,73,70,

This is if I was trying to factor EVERYTHING to 70 but no higher.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;345221]This is if I was trying to factor EVERYTHING to 70 but no higher.[/QUOTE]Yes, but if would make more sense to exclude exponents already factored to 2[sup]70[/sup] (or beyond) when you're gathering your data.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;345222]Yes, but if would make more sense to exclude exponents already factored to 2[sup]70[/sup] (or beyond) when you're gathering your data.[/QUOTE]

Whoops completely did not see that feature. Glad someone is paying attention.