[QUOTE=chalsall;293902]The system could very easily facilitate that <332M> -- literlly less than half an hour of work. Anyone interested?

I would break the "Work Saved" statistics out, since a single factor found would save about 5,000 GHz Days of LL work...[/QUOTE]

Personally, I think Uncwilly is doing a good job managing that range...
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10693[/url]
and I know several of the participants there have GPUs.

That being said, he probably won't object to help.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;293895]CUDALucas. While the extra TF would be nice, clearing all expos (not just the factorables) is the project's main goal. (Of course, I think people would prefer to have a nice, really stable version of CuLu that just plain works, while a few people continue with development versions.)[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

However, I would really like to see a proper analysis done on where exactly the "curves cross" as far as how much TFing can a GPU do before it takes longer to find a factor than to run a LL test. I suspect, based on for example, [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/2423ae6e8f696d5e7d1447de91ca35a6/"]LaurV's[/URL] statistics, that it would actually be "profitable" to go at least one, perhaps two, additional bits, but it would be nice to have hard data rather than a gut feel.

James, I know you were collecting such data for GPU TFing -- have you also collected data on GPU LLing?

[QUOTE=petrw1;293904]Personally, I think Uncwilly is doing a good job managing that range...
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10693[/url]
and I know several of the participants there have GPUs.

That being said, he probably won't object to help.[/QUOTE]

They've talked about it [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=280003#post280003"]before[/URL], and like Uncwilly said, there's no point at the moment. GPU272 was conceived to make sure that expos didn't get handed out as LLs. What difference would it make?

(Wait, pretty graphs! Of course!)
[QUOTE=chalsall;293906]Agreed.

However, I would really like to see a proper analysis done on where exactly the "curves cross" as far as how much TFing can a GPU do before it takes longer to find a factor than to run a LL test. I suspect, based on for example, [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/2423ae6e8f696d5e7d1447de91ca35a6/"]LaurV's[/URL] statistics, that it would actually be "profitable" to go at least one, perhaps two, additional bits, but it would be nice to have hard data rather than a gut feel.

James, I know you were collecting such data for GPU TFing -- have you also collected data on GPU LLing?[/QUOTE]
For LaurV, at least, he's been running expos through CuLu, and stopping and restarting both as he tweaks hardware settings and as new versions of CuLu come out. Keep in mind that the last month or so I would expect that our CuLu output has been quite a bit lower than otherwise. It went through a period of hard testing when no one was really sure what versions were stable or not, and LaurV and flash (at least) were mostly focused on testing rather than throughput. Fortunately, CuLu seems to have solidified recently; it comes back to what I said earlier about having an absolutely stable version for the majority to use. (I think that might be a few versions down the road, but those reasons belong in the CuLu thread, not here.)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;293908]They've talked about it [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=280003#post280003"]before[/URL], and like Uncwilly said, there's no point at the moment. GPU272 was conceived to make sure that expos didn't get handed out as LLs. What difference would it make?[/QUOTE]

Hey, that's cool. Trivial for me to do, but I'm not wishing to step on anyone's toes.

[QUOTE=chalsall;293906]have you also collected data on GPU LLing?[/QUOTE]No, I haven't.
I've run exactly one exponent through CUDAlucas. I found it to be highly version-dependent: v1.64 was roughly 100% faster than v1.2 on my 570 (~3ms/it vs ~6ms/it at somewhere around 26M). So for a DC candidate in that range, it takes about 22h to LL so you should spend about 20 minutes (3.9GHz-days) on TF, which is [url=http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/credit.php?worktype=TF&exponent=26000000&frombits=1&tobits=69]roughly 2^69[/url].

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;293912]No, I haven't.[/QUOTE]

Could you?

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;293912]I've run exactly one exponent through CUDAlucas. I found it to be highly version-dependent: v1.64 was roughly 100% faster than v1.2 on my 570 (~3ms/it vs ~6ms/it at somewhere around 26M). So for a DC candidate in that range, it takes about 22h to LL so you should spend about 20 minutes (3.9GHz-days) on TF, which is [url=http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/credit.php?worktype=TF&exponent=26000000&frombits=1&tobits=69]roughly 2^69[/url].[/QUOTE]

Good to know. But I would argue the "curves" change for each 1M range. It would be nice to start collecting statistics on exponent, wall-clock time, hardware and SW version.

[QUOTE=chalsall;293911]Hey, that's cool. Trivial for me to do, but I'm not wishing to step on anyone's toes.[/QUOTE]

Now that you're willing, I think the shinies might persuade him :wink: (we really need a better smiley for wink)
[QUOTE=chalsall;293914]
Good to know. But I would argue the "curves" change for each 1M range. It would be nice to start collecting statistics on exponent, wall-clock time, hardware and SW version.[/QUOTE]
I would reargue that any serious data analysis should wait until the dev changes slow down. I think they have, but we should wait a week or so to be sure. (James, among the changes, somewhere in the 1.6 series, Prime95 came along and made some optimizations, 7% improvement right off the bat :smile:)

[QUOTE=chalsall;293790][URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/estimated_completion/primenet/"]View added.[/URL] Answer: less than 200 days to Trial Factor everything to the new GPU levels up to 60M for every candidate not already LLed.

Wow!!! GPUs are just amazing!!! :smile:[/QUOTE]

Any chance we can get that chart for P-1 factoring as well? I'm kinda curious what our throughput is. (It would also be nice to know PrimeNet's throughput in the area that petrw1 previously estimated.)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;293919]Any chance we can get that chart for P-1 factoring as well? I'm kinda curious what our throughput is. (It would also be nice to know PrimeNet's throughput in the area that petrw1 previously estimated.)[/QUOTE]

I knew you were going to ask... :smile: Yes, that's already planned for in the data definitions and code, just not done yet.

Unfortunately, calculating PrimeNet's P-1 throughput is not as easy, but I might have thought of a way to do so.

[QUOTE=chalsall;293920]I knew you were going to ask... :smile: Yes, that's already planned for in the data definitions and code, just not done yet.
[/quote]Ah, but I think you're just as curious as me/the rest of us, and so asking was only a formality ;)
[QUOTE=chalsall;293920]Unfortunately, calculating PrimeNet's P-1 throughput is not as easy, but I might have thought of a way to do so.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't have asked if you didn't already have mersenne.info running... :razz:

[QUOTE=chalsall;293914]Could you?



Good to know. But I would argue the "curves" change for each 1M range. It would be nice to start collecting statistics on exponent, wall-clock time, hardware and SW version.[/QUOTE]

CuLu has come a long way. The assessment about the trial period is correct. We had a lot of testing for a while. Newer versions are stable and fast. Original DC took ~24 hours, now with 1.69 I can run a DC in ~15 hours. That's without specific code optimizations for CUDA and shader model.

As a side, I'm willing to do TF in the 332M range one we're caught up.