[QUOTE=TheMawn;356179]The Makes Sense[SUP]TM[/SUP] assignments I've been grabbing for TF via GPU72.com have been exclusively 73 to 74 in the low 60's range (consistently going up as we do them; in the upper 63M right now). How long should it be before it turns back into 71 (or something) to 74?[/QUOTE]
According to [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/current_level/"]this[/URL] in ~24,000 exponents.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;356179]How long should it be before it turns back into 71 (or something) to 74?[/QUOTE]

It is impossible to say exactly, but given our current 30 day average of about 344 candidates a day to 74, and that there are currently ~2,500 candidates ready for assignment already at 73 below 65M but without P-1 done (a criteria for WMS), I would estimate in about a week or so.

Keep in mind you can always set your work preference to be "Lowest TF Level", which sorts by lowest current factor depth (71) followed by lowest candidate (currently ~64.576M).

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;356191]According to [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/current_level/"]this[/URL] in ~24,000 exponents.[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/available/nop-1/"]This report[/URL] (showing available candidates without P-1 done) is a better data source to use for this estimation. Note that GPU72 doesn't own all the candidates listed in the above report.

And then there are people like me doing almost exclusively 71->72 64M because I want to find more factors faster, for fun. About 5% of the time I get a 70->72. Since starting GPU72 14 days ago I've found 8 factors.

We'll see if I'll continue throwing 320 GHz days/day at GPU72 once my next electricity bill arrives lol

Just pay it[B]™[/B] (or have someone else look at it and pay it for you). It's the only way :)

[QUOTE=flashjh;356226]Just pay it[B]™[/B] (or have someone else look at it and pay it for you). It's the only way :)[/QUOTE]

Haha. It's bad enough that I want to buy more GPU power to throw at trial-factoring Just Because[B]™[/B].

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;356228]Haha. It's bad enough that I want to buy more GPU power to throw at trial-factoring Just Because[B]™[/B].[/QUOTE]

Trust me. You're not the only one. There isn;t even a plausible excuse for getting a GTX 660 Ti whilst already owning a GTX 670 (can't even SLI different cards) besides sending ASUS an I-Love-You note with a big fat cheque for $250.

I occasionally wander over to Newegg and try to make the cheapest prime machine I can think of. I'll probably be one of those people with four or five computers humming in some cold room, and about thirty years too young for the part :razz: Speaking of...

I took a gander over to mersenne.ca's throughput calculator. I compared an i5-3570k to an fx-8350 or whatever it was. Are those benchmarks legit? I'm seeing similar-release-date processors from AMD getting absolutely crushed by Intel. I've noticed a serious lack of talk regarding AMD processors, so it doesn't surprise me that Intel is the stronger hitter, but holy crap!

The reason I ask is AMD always ends up powering the hypothetical budget systems I put together in the cart. I was thinking to myself that AMD is so far away from being able to have the memory bandwidth to support eight cores at 5 GHz (with even 1866 being barely achievable in a lot of cases) but it looks like the CPU is awful too.

Does AMD just fall to the side because of lack of interest? Or have people been trying to make it work in vain?

AMDs work well for general purpose office/web stuff, IMHO.
AMD's implementation of AVX (and FMA) is a failure, at least for Primenet purposes. SSE2 code runs faster than AVX code on AMD.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;356268]Trust me. You're not the only one. There isn;t even a plausible excuse for getting a GTX 660 Ti whilst already owning a GTX 670 (can't even SLI different cards) besides sending ASUS an I-Love-You note with a big fat cheque for $250.[/QUOTE]

Oh I bought a GTX 760 three weeks ago to game. How much time have I gamed? 15 minutes. How much time have I trial factored? 21000 minutes lol.

[QUOTE]I occasionally wander over to Newegg and try to make the cheapest prime machine I can think of. I'll probably be one of those people with four or five computers humming in some cold room, and about thirty years too young for the part :razz: Speaking of...[/QUOTE]

So I see I'm not the only one with that affliction! Normally I'm putting in ~450 GHz towards Seventeen or Bust. But recently [url=http://www.seventeenorbust.com/stats/users/user.mhtml?userID=18096]this guy[/url] came along with the equivalent of 100 4-core Haswells. He nearly doubled the project throughput. Makes me feel insignificant.

[QUOTE]I took a gander over to mersenne.ca's throughput calculator. I compared an i5-3570k to an fx-8350 or whatever it was. Are those benchmarks legit? I'm seeing similar-release-date processors from AMD getting absolutely crushed by Intel. I've noticed a serious lack of talk regarding AMD processors, so it doesn't surprise me that Intel is the stronger hitter, but holy crap!

The reason I ask is AMD always ends up powering the hypothetical budget systems I put together in the cart. I was thinking to myself that AMD is so far away from being able to have the memory bandwidth to support eight cores at 5 GHz (with even 1866 being barely achievable in a lot of cases) but it looks like the CPU is awful too.

Does AMD just fall to the side because of lack of interest? Or have people been trying to make it work in vain?[/QUOTE]

AMD is only competitive on a capital basis. I used to buy all AMD but the last two systems I got have been Intel. Intel chips are faster per clock and faster per watt. AMD's Bulldozer architecture sucks, and they're still using it to make new chips. AMD is also a full process shrink behind Intel, which makes it difficult to produce competitive products.

AMD chased all the smart engineers out of the company a few years back when AMD started having financial troubles. Now they're really suffering. Keeping AMD alive is their APU, as well as being the chip in the new version of all three main consoles being released this and next year.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;356268]There isn;t even a plausible excuse for getting a GTX 660 Ti whilst already owning a GTX 670[/QUOTE]

You can use the 660 as a physx card for the 670, it actually helps some games. :max:

Lol well now that you mention it, I already have set the GTX 660 Ti to dedicated PhysX. Now, I just have to remember to turn mfaktc off or slow it down whenever I play on playing a PhysX enabled game.


Well, AMD definitely is dominating the budget market. Intel is making some serious project with hyper-efficient processors but I think they're scared of having multiple platforms, and chips like the i7-4770k with integrated graphics are all-around good instead of absolutely stupendous in targeted sectors. People with an unlocked i7 aren't usually going to be wanting integrated graphics.

I think AMD are doing well for the position they're in. If I understand correctly AMD and Intel were once upon a time in reversed positions. You just have to know how to play from behind, and making super cheap platforms is a good way to go. Making the processors for the next generation of consoles is absolutely massive. If they're using a chip that would be available for PCs, they'll have a good supply of CPUs which exceed the design specs for the console and they can sell them for PCs instead. You're going to have a number of absolutely sublime chips if you're manufacturing hundreds of millions for consoles.