Okay, just had to be sure :razz:

Now I'm sure. Thanks

chalsall, can you put the "minimum TF level" back for P-1? I just tried to snag the lone 74-bit but couldn't :razz:

[QUOTE=Dubslow;294180]chalsall, can you put the "minimum TF level" back for P-1? I just tried to snag the lone 74-bit but couldn't :razz:[/QUOTE]

Instead I've added a "FactTo desc" to the "order by" clause. Try now.... :smile:

chalsall, the LLTF function appears broken. I tried reserving under 51M, and about half of the assignments were >52M, with one in the 57M range. There are more available under 51M, but currently at a higher bit level.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;294225]chalsall, the LLTF function appears broken. I tried reserving under 51M, and about half of the assignments were >52M, with one in the 57M range. There are more available under 51M, but currently at a higher bit level.[/QUOTE]

What "Option" did you choose? If it was the default of "What makes sense" and your pledge was to 72, then you would have received the "Oldest".

I sometimes change "What makes sense" to be what makes sense at the time. There are some old candidates reserved from PrimeNet coming back from P-1 workers who took work at below 72 which I wanted to clear out.

The other options, "Lowest Exponent", etc, always do what they say they'll do.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;294180]chalsall, can you put the "minimum TF level" back for P-1? I just tried to snag the lone 74-bit but couldn't :razz:[/QUOTE]

I believe if you fill in "Optional range" of 57M to 57M and ask for at least 5 you should get that one.

2 more GPUto72 milestones.....
 

Over 3,000 factors found.
Over 10,000 P-1 completions

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;294026]Thanks to those who have submitted data, but I need more data points, please. :smile:[/QUOTE]Thanks everyone who has submitted data, I now have a pretty good picture of CUDALucas throughput, and can current predict timings +/- 6% for pretty much any card.

[url]http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/cudalucas.php[/url]

Performance depends on GFLOPS, FFT size, and compute version. As with mfaktc, compute 2.0 is best, 2.1 is second-best and 1.3 is slowest.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;294257]Thanks everyone who has submitted data, I now have a pretty good picture of CUDALucas throughput, and can current predict timings +/- 6% for pretty much any card.[/QUOTE]

Coolness. Thanks James!!!

Now, the question at hand... Where do the curves cross to guide people as to how deep should they TF at a particular candidate level vs. doing a LL run?

[QUOTE=chalsall;294261]Coolness. Thanks James!!!

Now, the question at hand... Where do the curves cross to guide people as to how deep should they TF at a particular candidate level vs. doing a LL run?[/QUOTE]

Eyeballing the stats (LL vs TF), I see the TF earning about 9x the credit/day vs LL. Assuming CPUs earn roughly the same credit/day for both LL & TF, this represents 3 additional bits of TF (7x additional effort in TF). No data for 680 -- I suspect it'll be closer to 4 additional bits.

But what about those cards that can't LL?!

[QUOTE=axn;294282]Eyeballing the stats (LL vs TF), I see the TF earning about 9x the credit/day vs LL. Assuming CPUs earn roughly the same credit/day for both LL & TF, this represents 3 additional bits of TF (7x additional effort in TF). No data for 680 -- I suspect it'll be closer to 4 additional bits.

But what about those cards that can't LL?![/QUOTE]

I have a feeling very few of those cards are being used by Gimpsters, seeing as they are GTS 2/3xx, GT 2/3xx and 8/9xxx models. Close to half of them produce less per day than a single core of an I5 2500k.