[QUOTE=kladner;281233]
:down:
Maybe this beastie ([URL]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130626[/URL]) would even get more affordable. Not that I would suggest it seriously. Dual GTX 460 SLI-on-a-card, minimum 46 amps on 12v. Worse, it looks sure to dump most of the heat inside the case. Bunch of hard luck stories in the reviews, too.[/QUOTE]

This has a name: "Bleeding Edge". Those heat pipes are trying to tell you something about how much heat you are going to get, and the need to manage it somehow (see liquid versus air cooling thread!)

Can you say "jet engine sounds coming from fans?" :smile:

[QUOTE=kladner;281233]
Maybe this beastie ([url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130626[/url]) would even get more affordable. Not that I would suggest it seriously. Dual GTX 460 SLI-on-a-card, minimum 46 amps on 12v. Worse, it looks sure to dump most of the heat inside the case. Bunch of hard luck stories in the reviews, too.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the HD 6990 and the GTX 590 have begun putting their fans in the middle, pushing half of the hot air back into the case. I cannot understand why they would do that, other than that they simply could not cool it sufficiently anymore with their intake at the end of the card.

[QUOTE=bcp19;280797]Not sure how your quad compares to mine (Intel Core2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz), but mine runs 'faster' with the GPU running. To explain a bit, the Core 2 Quad seems to share something between core 'pairs' that slows them down depending on the work being done. I started off using P95 with 4 LL's running, and all 4 had around 90ms per iteration. I found out if I switched core 2 and 4 to TF that the LL's now were at around 60ms per. So, using batch files and the start command to run mfaktc on cores 2 and 4 while setting P95 to 1 and 3 keeps the LL's around 60ms. My other GPU machines are i5's and I see a slight change with mfaktc running (2-4ms slower).[/QUOTE]
The memory controller for core 2 quads is on motherboard rather than the cpu. They all have huge problems with memory bandwidth and quads. The core 2 quads are actually two dual core cpus bolted together.

[QUOTE=henryzz;281382]The memory controller for core 2 quads is on motherboard rather than the cpu. They all have huge problems with memory bandwidth and quads. The core 2 quads are actually two dual core cpus bolted together.[/QUOTE]

I find the same with my Q9550. It really slows down when I have all 4 "cores" working. I have all 4 doing P-1 right now and even though I limit it to 3 High Mem it still completes at half the pace of my i5-750 OC'd to 3.20. I am trying to run two P-1 workers with 2 cores each to reduce the memory bandwidth wars; so far it seems to be faster.

[QUOTE=petrw1;280681]Welcome to the 100 P-1 club delta_t.

See you at 500???[/QUOTE]

And monst makes 3.

Daily completions to 72...
 

Hey all... To show to a certain individual who continues to believe that this sub-project is somehow "hurting" GIMPS, I did a quick query to see how many candidates we were completing to 72 "bits" or higher. I'll probably put this into yet another report shortly, but so it's "on record" now:

[CODE]mysql> select date(Completed),count(*) from Assigned where FactTo>=72 and Completed>0 group by date(Completed) limit 100;
+-----------------+----------+
| date(Completed) | count(*) |
+-----------------+----------+
| 2011-11-05 | 42 |
| 2011-11-06 | 45 |
| 2011-11-07 | 28 |
| 2011-11-08 | 35 |
| 2011-11-09 | 47 |
| 2011-11-10 | 38 |
| 2011-11-11 | 27 |
| 2011-11-12 | 49 |
| 2011-11-13 | 30 |
| 2011-11-14 | 36 |
| 2011-11-15 | 53 |
| 2011-11-16 | 70 |
| 2011-11-17 | 31 |
| 2011-11-18 | 54 |
| 2011-11-19 | 19 |
| 2011-11-20 | 76 |
| 2011-11-21 | 124 |
| 2011-11-22 | 105 |
| 2011-11-23 | 116 |
| 2011-11-24 | 127 |
| 2011-11-25 | 99 |
| 2011-11-26 | 155 |
| 2011-11-27 | 207 |
| 2011-11-28 | 311 |
| 2011-11-29 | 234 |
| 2011-11-30 | 246 |
| 2011-12-01 | 148 |
| 2011-12-02 | 387 |
| 2011-12-03 | 187 |
| 2011-12-04 | 445 |
| 2011-12-05 | 177 |
| 2011-12-06 | 423 |
| 2011-12-07 | 216 |
| 2011-12-08 | 143 |
+-----------------+----------+[/CODE]

Also, so you all know... As it appears we've saturated the available P-1 fire power, I've begun returning to PrimeNet candidates TFed to 72 or above but without P-1 work completed; I'm still currently holding the lowest 250 for P-1 workers.

[QUOTE=chalsall;281513]I did a quick query to see how many candidates we were completing to 72 "bits" or higher. I'll probably put this into yet another report shortly[/QUOTE]

Actually, I realized this was better plotted on a graph. Please see the bottom of the [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/overall/"]Overall System Progress[/URL] report.

Note that the right most data points on the graph are what has been completed on the day the graph is viewed.

So long as we average more than approximately 200 for the red line on the graph, we're not holding back GIMPS at all....

(Deeper drill-down (read: more graphs) to be made available over the next few days.)

Both the charts and the graph are great. It's interesting that there appear to be one or more heavy hitters in the 72 and above range who report every other day. I'm guessing it's just one, since the "more than" case might imply synchronization. I'm by no means a statistician,but the pattern seems very dramatic, at least at the moment.

GPU to 72 makes Top 10
 

in the year-to-date TF team report.

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_top_teams_TF/[/url]

[QUOTE=petrw1;281558]in the year-to-date TF team report.

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_top_teams_TF/[/url][/QUOTE]If I made myself a team, I would be in the top 25.

[QUOTE=chalsall;281571]Five seconds.... :smile:[/QUOTE]

Took me 30 seconds... I was focusing on the numbers, based on the thread context...

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;281581]If I made myself a team, I would be in the top 25.[/QUOTE]
I would be 17. And I've only been doing this around 4-5 months.

(nucleon? xyzzy? well actually, that's why GPU272 has made it so high in <1 month...)