Amazon EC2...
 

You are now connected to Mark from Amazon.com
Me:I would like to "chat" with a human...
Mark:Hi. Thanks for contacting Amazon
My name is Mark.. and I am a human!
Tell me, how can I help you today?
Me:Thanks Mark. OK, I've received several emails saying that my AWS service is about to be suspended because of an unpaided bill of $1.28.
Mark:A member of our AWS team will need to help you with this; however, they don't have chat support. Would you like me to send them an e-mail so they can get back to you within 1-2 business days?
Or you can call us by phone and request to be transferred to AWS support
Me:What, exactly, is the phone number I should call? You guys appear to make sure no customer has the phone number.
Mark:+1 866 216 1072
and tell the agent that you want to be transferred to Amazon Web Service
Me:Thanks Mark. However, dialing that number from Barbados results in "That number cannot be connected to".
Do you have a non-toll-free number I can use?
Mark:Oh, ok.. let me get a different one
+1 206 266 2992
Did that one work?
Me:OK, thanks Mark. I'm currently interacting with a human who can barely speak English... I've asked to speak to her supervisor, and am now on hold (and listening to classical music...).
Mark:Ok
Is there anything else I can help you with?
Thanks for contacting Amazon. Have a good day!
Me:Actually, there is. Why can I not access the AWS people who sent me the "scary" emails?
Mark:Humm I am not sure.
They are a completely different department
Me:OK. I appreciate this.
Mark from Amazon.com has left the conversation.

[QUOTE=manfred4;373820]Did you implement that one yet? If you did, it seems to be not working as intended now, the 70M+ Assignments are not showing up yet (on [URL="http://en.gpu72.com/reports/factoring_cost/"]this[/URL] one neither).[/QUOTE]

Unlike some, I very much appreciate being challenged.

Please let me know if what you expect to see is not what you see.

[QUOTE=LaurV;373807]In an "order by fire power", I see a "[URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/c87ea45fa5e7920bc6d4a431af1c3698/"]NickOfTime[/URL]" coming very strong from the back. With about 2THzD/D, that sounds like 4 Titans or a lot of AMD fire power. With ~29G/factor, it means he is doing the last bit, for which the 39 factors from 46 expected sounds statistically good. So, he is not cheating, he [U]has[/U] a lot of fire power.

So.. Who is he? Same "Nick" from the forum, or new meat? :razz:
Congrats anyhow, and kotgw![/QUOTE]

Just a few gpu's :-) 2 AMD 290x, amd 260x, gtx 690, gtx 660ti, gtx 560ti

[QUOTE=NickOfTime;373874]Just a few gpu's :-) 2 AMD 290x, amd 260x, gtx 690, gtx 660ti, gtx 560ti[/QUOTE]

Wow, very nice. Mind if you tell me how much the 260X cranks out? :smile:

[QUOTE=kracker;373879]Wow, very nice. Mind if you tell me how much the 260X cranks out? :smile:[/QUOTE]

160ghz/d at bit level 73-74 about 200ghz/d below that..

[QUOTE=NickOfTime;373881]160ghz/d at bit level 73-74[/QUOTE]That seems unexpectedly lower than the 212GHd/d [url=http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php]my chart[/url] predicts. Would you mind filling out the [url=http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php#benchmark]mfakto benchmark form[/url] at the top of the page with data from your two AMD GPUs? I have pretty good data for NVIDIA but not so much from AMD, especially the R[i]x[/i] series.

edit: since you edited your post to clarify, would you mind sending me benchmarks in both ranges?

[QUOTE=NickOfTime;373881]160ghz/d at bit level 73-74 about 200ghz/d below that..[/QUOTE]

Hmm, my 7770 at 73-74 does 130 GHz/d. 7770 has 640 SP, 260X has 896. Also the 260X has a core clock of 1100 MHz, while 7770 has 1000.

@James Heinrich: I think we should have a standard bitrange-exponent for testing, as speeds vary a lot. etc the DC range is "faster" than the LL range.

[QUOTE=kracker;373885]@James Heinrich: I think we should have a standard bitrange-exponent for testing, as speeds vary a lot. etc the DC range is "faster" than the LL range.[/QUOTE]

Further to this... I understand that AMD (and possibly nVidia) cards have "sweet spots". As in, for example, going to 73 might be more efficient for certain cards than going to 74.

If this can be determined and defined, then perhaps GPU72 should expand "What makes sense" to also include "What makes sense for ${Class} card" options.

Thoughts?

[QUOTE=kracker;373885]@James Heinrich: I think we should have a standard bitrange-exponent for testing, as speeds vary a lot. etc the DC range is "faster" than the LL range.[/QUOTE]That would give you good data on that particular exponent, but randomized input actually gives a better overall picture of these speed variations. What would be brilliant would be if Oliver/Bertram could include a broad benchmark that runs a few classes for a range of exponents (every 1M, 5M, etc across the range specified [e.g. 30M-80M]) and for each test at various bit ranges and give throughput performance at that exponent+bitlevel. That would provide consistent data to map the 3D performance variance for the various GPUs. More data than I currently want to analyze, but could be interesting.

60M on a HD 7770:

70-71: 153 GHz
71-72: 154 GHz
72-73: 154 GHz
73-74: 132 GHz

35M on same:

68-69: 188
69-70: 178
70-71: 160
71-72: 160

I'm curious if mfaktc is more "smooth".