i7-3930K benchmarks
 

[QUOTE=fivemack]I see you have a 3930K now. Would you be prepared to do what was done at [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=152301&postcount=7[/url]
(though -t 3, -t 6, -t 12 are more sensible thread-counts to test on a six-core)
and also running msieve149.exe from msieve149.zip downloaded from
[url]http://sourceforge.net/projects/msieve/files/msieve/Msieve%20v1.49/[/url]
Please post the answers in the msieve forum [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=83[/url]
I am extremely interested in how fast the four-channel memory controller is for msieve linear algebra as the thread count increases; if it is interestingly fast then I'll probably get a 3930K next month.[/QUOTE]
I'm just posting here at [i]fivemack[/i]'s request, I don't actually understand what these results mean. :smile:

v1.39 doesn't seem to thread very well. Even with -t 12, at best I saw 6 physical cores in use, with each core running at about 60% capacity.

v1.49 seems to thread much better, at -t 12 it's spread evenly across 12 hyperthreaded cores at about 65-70% load evenly on all cores.

Attached log file includes (in order):
1.39: msieve.exe -v -nc -t 12
1.39: msieve.exe -v -nc -t 6
1.49: msieve.exe -v -nc -t 12
1.49: msieve.exe -v -nc -t 6
1.49: msieve.exe -v -nc -t 3

Something odd is going on here: 1.39 is faster than 1.49 even though it's reporting lower CPU usage and (since filtering has been improved between 1.39 and 1.49) running a larger matrix.

[TEX]
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
& time (3)& time (6)& time (12) \\ \hline \\
1.39& & 1245 & 1301 \\
1.49& 2363 & 1653 & 1571 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
[/TEX]

Could you also post the spec of your machine? (memory speed, motherboard etc)

Thank you in advance.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;282568]Could you also post the spec of your machine? (memory speed, motherboard etc)[/QUOTE]Sorry, yes:[list][*]CPU: Intel i7-3930K @ 4500MHz[*]RAM: Corsair Vengeance 4*8GB [quad-channel] (CMZ32GX3M4X1600C10) DDR3-1600 10-10-10-27-2T[*]motherboard: Asus P9X79 PRO[/list]Let me know if I missed anything.

Core i5 750@3.6GHz, 8 GB DDR3 1333 MHz.

[code]Sat Dec 17 15:22:31 2011
Sat Dec 17 15:22:31 2011
Sat Dec 17 15:22:31 2011 Msieve v. 1.50 (SVN unknown)
Sat Dec 17 15:22:31 2011 random seeds: df0f8cb4 76141666
Sat Dec 17 15:22:31 2011 factoring 4173963189037240309713561470980060844301599530724369583171546744398445920275944654104909360191816721597816377363188552009346572473 (130 digits)
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 searching for 15-digit factors
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 commencing number field sieve (130-digit input)
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 R0: -10678489767165051962024349
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 R1: 202148791722581
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 A0: 130068846150643433934522883496770
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 A1: 1272305145809368946430393037
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 A2: -4820655295278675156855
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 A3: -39469582197230476
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 A4: 38243516789
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 A5: 30060
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 skew 228570.75, size 1.569e-012, alpha -6.792, combined = 7.496e-011 rroots = 5
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 commencing relation filtering
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 estimated available RAM is 8183.1 MB
Sat Dec 17 15:22:32 2011 commencing duplicate removal, pass 1
Sat Dec 17 15:24:32 2011 found 2598477 hash collisions in 13708853 relations
Sat Dec 17 15:24:50 2011 added 1 free relations
Sat Dec 17 15:24:50 2011 commencing duplicate removal, pass 2
Sat Dec 17 15:24:55 2011 found 2526833 duplicates and 11182021 unique relations
Sat Dec 17 15:24:55 2011 memory use: 82.6 MB
Sat Dec 17 15:24:55 2011 reading ideals above 720000
Sat Dec 17 15:24:56 2011 commencing singleton removal, initial pass
Sat Dec 17 15:26:47 2011 memory use: 344.5 MB
Sat Dec 17 15:26:47 2011 reading all ideals from disk
Sat Dec 17 15:26:47 2011 memory use: 330.4 MB
Sat Dec 17 15:26:48 2011 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Sat Dec 17 15:26:49 2011 begin with 11182021 relations and 11719970 unique ideals
Sat Dec 17 15:26:54 2011 reduce to 5210969 relations and 4863630 ideals in 16 passes
Sat Dec 17 15:26:54 2011 max relations containing the same ideal: 96
Sat Dec 17 15:26:56 2011 removing 825491 relations and 719218 ideals in 106273 cliques
Sat Dec 17 15:26:56 2011 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Sat Dec 17 15:26:56 2011 begin with 4385478 relations and 4863630 unique ideals
Sat Dec 17 15:26:58 2011 reduce to 4293130 relations and 4049611 ideals in 10 passes
Sat Dec 17 15:26:58 2011 max relations containing the same ideal: 83
Sat Dec 17 15:27:00 2011 removing 617219 relations and 510946 ideals in 106273 cliques
Sat Dec 17 15:27:00 2011 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Sat Dec 17 15:27:00 2011 begin with 3675911 relations and 4049611 unique ideals
Sat Dec 17 15:27:02 2011 reduce to 3609739 relations and 3470882 ideals in 10 passes
Sat Dec 17 15:27:02 2011 max relations containing the same ideal: 73
Sat Dec 17 15:27:03 2011 relations with 0 large ideals: 486
Sat Dec 17 15:27:03 2011 relations with 1 large ideals: 2707
Sat Dec 17 15:27:03 2011 relations with 2 large ideals: 35991
Sat Dec 17 15:27:03 2011 relations with 3 large ideals: 200230
Sat Dec 17 15:27:03 2011 relations with 4 large ideals: 592581
Sat Dec 17 15:27:03 2011 relations with 5 large ideals: 989462
Sat Dec 17 15:27:03 2011 relations with 6 large ideals: 978596
Sat Dec 17 15:27:03 2011 relations with 7+ large ideals: 809686
Sat Dec 17 15:27:03 2011 commencing 2-way merge
Sat Dec 17 15:27:05 2011 reduce to 2184638 relation sets and 2045781 unique ideals
Sat Dec 17 15:27:05 2011 commencing full merge
Sat Dec 17 15:27:26 2011 memory use: 228.9 MB
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 found 1094722 cycles, need 1073981
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 weight of 1073981 cycles is about 75457035 (70.26/cycle)
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 distribution of cycle lengths:
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 1 relations: 130527
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 2 relations: 127368
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 3 relations: 125795
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 4 relations: 113119
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 5 relations: 102993
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 6 relations: 87941
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 7 relations: 76759
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 8 relations: 65165
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 9 relations: 54780
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 10+ relations: 189534
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 heaviest cycle: 21 relations
Sat Dec 17 15:27:27 2011 commencing cycle optimization
Sat Dec 17 15:27:28 2011 start with 6170552 relations
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 pruned 146025 relations
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 memory use: 206.5 MB
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 distribution of cycle lengths:
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 1 relations: 130527
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 2 relations: 130418
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 3 relations: 130196
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 4 relations: 115818
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 5 relations: 105171
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 6 relations: 88903
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 7 relations: 77655
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 8 relations: 64752
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 9 relations: 54165
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 10+ relations: 176376
Sat Dec 17 15:27:35 2011 heaviest cycle: 20 relations
Sat Dec 17 15:27:36 2011 RelProcTime: 304
Sat Dec 17 15:27:36 2011
Sat Dec 17 15:27:36 2011 commencing linear algebra
Sat Dec 17 15:27:36 2011 read 1073981 cycles
Sat Dec 17 15:27:37 2011 cycles contain 3464474 unique relations
Sat Dec 17 15:28:08 2011 read 3464474 relations
Sat Dec 17 15:28:11 2011 using 20 quadratic characters above 134217498
Sat Dec 17 15:28:25 2011 building initial matrix
Sat Dec 17 15:28:53 2011 memory use: 453.8 MB
Sat Dec 17 15:28:54 2011 read 1073981 cycles
Sat Dec 17 15:28:55 2011 matrix is 1073793 x 1073981 (326.8 MB) with weight 103906487 (96.75/col)
Sat Dec 17 15:28:55 2011 sparse part has weight 72792856 (67.78/col)
Sat Dec 17 15:29:01 2011 filtering completed in 2 passes
Sat Dec 17 15:29:02 2011 matrix is 1071372 x 1071560 (326.6 MB) with weight 103797093 (96.87/col)
Sat Dec 17 15:29:02 2011 sparse part has weight 72757804 (67.90/col)
Sat Dec 17 15:29:03 2011 matrix starts at (0, 0)
Sat Dec 17 15:29:04 2011 matrix is 1071372 x 1071560 (326.6 MB) with weight 103797093 (96.87/col)
Sat Dec 17 15:29:04 2011 sparse part has weight 72757804 (67.90/col)
Sat Dec 17 15:29:04 2011 saving the first 48 matrix rows for later
Sat Dec 17 15:29:04 2011 matrix includes 64 packed rows
Sat Dec 17 15:29:04 2011 matrix is 1071324 x 1071560 (314.1 MB) with weight 82570139 (77.06/col)
Sat Dec 17 15:29:04 2011 sparse part has weight 71622900 (66.84/col)
Sat Dec 17 15:29:04 2011 using block size 65536 for processor cache size 8192 kB
Sat Dec 17 15:29:08 2011 commencing Lanczos iteration ([B]4 threads[/B])
Sat Dec 17 15:29:08 2011 memory use: 268.3 MB
Sat Dec 17 15:29:13 2011 linear algebra at 0.1%, ETA 0h[B]47[/B]m
Sat Dec 17 15:29:15 2011 checkpointing every 1210000 dimensions[/code]

Anyone here with more benches?

Here is some ETA based data for two different machines. I can confirm that 1.39 appears to be faster than 1.49, although it doesn't scale quite as well. Utilization with 8 cores on machine 1 using 1.39 hovered around 55%, while with 1.49 it was around 85%.

machine 1 (hyperthreading disabled):
[B]Dual[/B] Intel(R)Xeon(R) CPU X5687 @ 3.60GHz (4 cores)
triple channel DDR3 @ 1333 MHz (per CPU) + QPI CPU interconnect

[CODE]
v1.49 (win 7 pro, 64 bit):
threads, ETA (min) (after settling)
2, 66
4, 41
8, 30

v1.39 (win 7 pro, 64 bit):
threads, ETA (min) (after settling)
2, 48
4, 32
8, 29
[/CODE]

machine 2 (hyperthreading enabled):
[B]Dual[/B] Intel(R)Xeon(R) CPU X5680 @ 3.33GHz (6 cores)
triple channel DDR3 @ 1333 MHz (per CPU) + QPI CPU interconnect
[CODE]

v1.50 (linux, 64 bit)
threads, ETA (min) (after settling)
4, 58
6, 45
8, 41
12, 39
24, 53
[/CODE]

Do you have the ability to try out the MPI version on that dual-hex-Xeon machine? It was a distinct improvement on my (now xilman's) dual-quad-Opteron, see

[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=263129&postcount=60[/url]
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=263129&postcount=65[/url]

[QUOTE=fivemack;283949]Do you have the ability to try out the MPI version on that dual-hex-Xeon machine? It was a distinct improvement on my (now xilman's) dual-quad-Opteron, see

[URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=263129&postcount=60[/URL]
[URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=263129&postcount=65[/URL][/QUOTE]

As of now, no; mpi isn't installed and I don't have admin privs on the machine. Though our admin knows what I occasionally use these machines for and might be willing to install it for me. I'll check when he's back next week.

Other than adding MPI, the only other major change between v1.39 and v1.50 is that now vector-vector multiplies are handled by multiple threads. Even if that causes cache thrashing, it shouldn't cost 25% of the total performance...

Both MPI and multithreaded vector-vector code were added in v1.46. Can someone see if the regression happens between v1.45 and v1.46? Unfortunately the SF page only has v1.41 and up, I can provide older releases if necessary.

Ooops....I thought I had put 1.49 on my hexcore to test, but looking at the log, I only had 1.39 on there, so I'll have to re-run the benches again. But just for yucks, here is a log for the LA on my box for 1.39.

Summary of run times for 1-6 threads with nothing else running:[code]elapsed time 02:56:55
elapsed time 01:39:01
elapsed time 01:15:45
elapsed time 01:05:25
elapsed time 01:00:09
elapsed time 00:59:16[/code]I'll re-run the tests and then play around with seeing what else I can run on the system without impacting msieve too much.

Full specs on the box:[LIST][*]Gigabyte M68MT-S2P MOBO[*]8 GB RAM (2x-4GB DDR3 PC3-1066 1333 MHz Patriot)[*]Athlon Phenom II X6 1090T BE 3.2 GHz[/LIST]