No windows. I'll need help with that as I don't have access to any windows boxes.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;337330]
M61000000, factored to 70 bits, assuming 2 L-L tests saved, with B1=670,000 and B2=16,750,000, using K*B^N+C = 1*2^61000000-1
Probability = [B]5.664070%[/B]

M65000000, factored to 70 bits, with B1=800,000 and B2=24,000,000, using K*B^N+C = 1*2^65000000-1
Probability = [B]6.224824%[/B][/QUOTE]

But 70 bits is not realistic for these assignments anymore, isn't it? 73 & 74 respectively would be more accurate. Here you'd get probabilities of 3.7-3.8 (for 73) and 3.3-3.4 (for 74).

[QUOTE=axn;337369]But 70 bits is not realistic for these assignments anymore, isn't it? 73 & 74 respectively would be more accurate. Here you'd get probabilities of 3.7-3.8 (for 73) and 3.3-3.4 (for 74).[/QUOTE]
No matter how you cut it, GPUs are faster than CPUs. We can get to the specifics once its public and has more testing. :)

[QUOTE=c10ck3r;337403]No matter how you cut it, GPUs are faster than CPUs. We can get to the specifics once its public and has more testing. :)[/QUOTE]

GPUs are also faster than CPUs at LLs, but they are so much faster at TF that TF makes the most sense. Do we know yet that the P-1 speed is sufficient to make sense? (I haven't been following this thread closely enough to know, so feel free to tell me to :rtfm:)

And perhaps even more importantly, doesn't the project need P-1's right now? So even if the speed difference isn't of the magnitude of the TF increase it might still be best for the project. I know that there is no general concensus on this, and also that everyone should do whatever part of the project makes them happy. But many of us are willing to sacrifice GHz days to work on whatever needs working on.

I heard (read) of a 25 time sêed increase.
ah found the quote


[code]Originally Posted by owftheevil
Cudapm1 output:

Code:
M61076737 has a factor: 432634830991289176546683053423
Run with B1 = 65000, B2 = 12035000, n = 3360k, d = 2310, e =2, 8 rp per pass. It used about 600Mb of device memory. Stage 2 took ~53 minutes.

Edit: Looks like about 15 minutes longer to make e = 4.
[/code]
[code]
To compare with CPU speed running the same curve in Prime95.
Laptop with Corei7 2720QM sandy bridge:
using 1 core: stage1 43min, stage2 ~ 8h (3 Gb RAM)
using 4 cores: stage1: 19 min, stage2 ~ 3.8h (3 Gb RAM)

I only completed ~20% of stage2 and extrapolated the runtime.
[/code]

[QUOTE=firejuggler;337409]I heard (read) of a 25 time sêed increase.
ah found the quote
[/QUOTE]

8h/53min ~= 8x. But later found that only half the things were being processed, so it is more like 4x?

There is no word for the stage 1 speed increase, and maybe there is none. But i'm sure i've read a 25 time speed somewhere. Oh well, 4 time speed increase, thats still good.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;336999]That would definately put a dent in our p-1 deficit. Though it's hard to trade 25x p-1 work for 125x factoring work.

EDIT: Not that it wouldn't get used though. I was trading up 10 ghz day of factoring per ghz day of p-1, and this is a better deal than that. :smile:[/QUOTE]

I said 25x because it takes me 20 hours to do a stage 2 on my Athlon x4, though that's if I'm running 3 at a time. It was a personal benchmark, because I tf 125x faster on my gpus than my cpus.

[QUOTE=axn;337369]But 70 bits is not realistic for these assignments anymore, isn't it? 73 & 74 respectively would be more accurate. Here you'd get probabilities of 3.7-3.8 (for 73) and 3.3-3.4 (for 74).[/QUOTE]

Bingo!

Optimal b1 and b2 are not going to be much different than what mprime selects. The basic unit of measurement used to compute optimal values is the time it takes to do 1 fft, which is relative to the device its running on. Gpus will probably favor slightly higher b2 because of memory bandwidth, and smaller e, at least for most cards that don't have lots of memory.

Recent run of 6108xxxx with b1 = 580000, b2 = 12035000, e = 2, d = 2310, and rp = 20:

Stage1 96m, 43s, 1673702 ffts
Stage2 89m, 42s, 1504234 ffts

Each increase of e by 2 will take about 15 minutes more.