Ok, the list was created on a Titan Black:

name GeForce GTX TITAN Black
Compatibility 3.5
clockRate (MHz) 1071
memClockRate (MHz) 3500
totalGlobalMem 6442450944
totalConstMem 65536
l2CacheSize 1572864
sharedMemPerBlock 49152
regsPerBlock 65536
warpSize 32
memPitch 2147483647
maxThreadsPerBlock 1024
maxThreadsPerMP 2048
multiProcessorCount 15
maxThreadsDim[3] 1024,1024,64
maxGridSize[3] 2147483647,65535,65535
textureAlignment 512
deviceOverlap 1


I thought that the crossover points between FFTs was the same for different cards. Why would the crossover points depend on the hardware? it should be dependent only on the FFT size.

I know the <GPU> fft.txt is dependant on the GPU because it only shows the fastest FFTs for that card and ignores all the others. But my list is ALL the possible FFTs and the exponents limits should be the same?

I may be misrecalling. Maybe I'm thinking of -cufftbench.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;444536]I may be misrecalling. Maybe I'm thinking of -cufftbench.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I think so. The -cufftbench generates the GPU specific "<GPU> fft.txt" file which out of the long list of FFTs I listed only shows the fastests FFTs in an increasing order. But I think that every time for example 2592K FFT makes it to your file because it is fast on your GPU, then the "max exp" next to it should be the same each time: 2592 48471289

Could you run it a couple times to confirm? Might be that the roundoff data randomly changes by a percent or two each time which could affect the max exponent a percent or two.

The numbers match cufftbench I did months ago as well as benchmarks done with CUDALucas compiled with both CUDA 6.5, 8.0 and several earlier versions.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;444524]The FFT ranges are produced on a per card basis. What card was that file produced with, ATH?

Yes, the tests are shifted per GP2's comments.[/QUOTE]

Oh, well... phooey. Is it clLucas that doesn't do shift counts? One of those GPU programs doesn't do it but now I'm not sure which one...

[QUOTE=Madpoo;444581]Oh, well... phooey. Is it clLucas that doesn't do shift counts? One of those GPU programs doesn't do it but now I'm not sure which one...[/QUOTE]

The two recent bad results from AirSquirrels look like they were run by cllucas anyway, not cudalucas.

Another sad thing I noticed... it doesn't look like either of those report error codes. Every result from either cllucas or cudalucas have an error code of zero (or none at all...)

Is that not a supported feature on those apps? it doesn't keep track of rounding errors, repeatable or not, like Prime95 does?

My thought was I could look for exponents done by whatever GPU app around certain FFT breakpoints, and if they showed evidence of having rounding errors (by looking at the error code), maybe I could draw some data from that. But looks like I hit a dead end. Bummer. If anyone can think of another way using available data, I can take a different tack, but I'm out of ideas there.

My best alternate approach was simply look at all good/bad results from those GPU apps, broken down into 1e6 chunks, and see if there are any spikes in bad results. Sadly there aren't a lot of results to chew on so the data is a bit choppy. I think I can only compare *known* good/bad results, but not any of the unknown/unverified stuff. There just aren't that many in any given 1M range of exponents. 38M had the most with 483 known results from cllucas apps (3 of which were bad).

In other words, just a dearth of data, but here's what I have... the "range" is the 1e6 range, i.e. 40 = 40M-41M
[CODE]clLucas
Range Bad Total PercentBad
34 1 51 1.96078431372549
35 3 88 3.40909090909091
36 6 382 1.57068062827225
37 2 298 0.671140939597315
38 3 483 0.62111801242236
39 3 213 1.40845070422535
40 5 77 6.49350649350649
43 1 28 3.57142857142857
44 1 27 3.7037037037037
56 2 27 7.40740740740741
57 1 56 1.78571428571429
58 3 36 8.33333333333333
59 2 31 6.45161290322581
60 1 6 16.6666666666667
64 1 2 50[/CODE]

[CODE]cudaLucas
Range Bad Total PercentBad
1 1 9 11.1111111111111
22 1 2 50
25 4 180 2.22222222222222
26 59 621 9.50080515297907
27 18 651 2.76497695852535
28 4 165 2.42424242424242
29 22 511 4.30528375733855
30 23 300 7.66666666666667
31 20 468 4.27350427350427
32 7 609 1.14942528735632
33 41 775 5.29032258064516
34 22 1254 1.75438596491228
35 32 949 3.37197049525817
36 21 1159 1.81190681622088
37 25 856 2.92056074766355
38 22 655 3.3587786259542
39 8 358 2.23463687150838
40 2 361 0.554016620498615
41 4 196 2.04081632653061
42 2 127 1.5748031496063
44 1 77 1.2987012987013
45 11 185 5.94594594594595
46 3 77 3.8961038961039
47 2 145 1.37931034482759
48 1 216 0.462962962962963
49 1 56 1.78571428571429
50 1 22 4.54545454545455
51 2 16 12.5
52 2 16 12.5
53 1 17 5.88235294117647
55 1 75 1.33333333333333
56 6 63 9.52380952380952
57 3 65 4.61538461538462
58 5 56 8.92857142857143
59 6 70 8.57142857142857
60 2 33 6.06060606060606
61 4 16 25
62 3 8 37.5
63 1 14 7.14285714285714
64 2 27 7.40740740740741
66 5 15 33.3333333333333
67 4 23 17.3913043478261
68 6 32 18.75
69 24 38 63.1578947368421
71 1 16 6.25
72 3 28 10.7142857142857
73 56 133 42.1052631578947
74 3 45 6.66666666666667
75 2 19 10.5263157894737
76 1 17 5.88235294117647
77 2 12 16.6666666666667
78 27 43 62.7906976744186
83 1 5 20
100 1 2 50[/CODE]

[CODE]Prime95 (all variations/versions)
Range Bad Total PercentBad
0 71 42225 0.168146832445234
1 526 57402 0.91634437824466
2 1155 46091 2.50591221713567
3 1436 46194 3.10862882625449
4 1787 45727 3.90797559428784
5 1947 46544 4.18313853557924
6 1824 46107 3.95601535558592
7 2065 45154 4.57323825131771
8 1932 46182 4.18344809666104
9 1610 45176 3.5638392066584
10 1724 45538 3.78584918090386
11 1869 45772 4.08328235602552
12 2061 46275 4.45380875202593
13 2061 46221 4.45901213734017
14 2176 46500 4.67956989247312
15 2585 47213 5.47518691885709
16 2286 46760 4.88879384088965
17 2218 46189 4.80200913637446
18 2097 46386 4.52076057431121
19 1997 45327 4.40576256977078
20 1857 45831 4.05184263926164
21 1822 46603 3.90961955238933
22 1887 45706 4.1285608016453
23 1786 44944 3.97383410466358
24 1698 45154 3.76046418921912
25 1698 44697 3.79891267870327
26 1785 45222 3.94719384370439
27 1699 44475 3.82012366498033
28 1542 44977 3.42841896969562
29 1394 43756 3.18584879787915
30 1416 43883 3.22676207187294
31 1472 43617 3.37483091455167
32 1384 43091 3.21180757002622
33 2413 43253 5.5788037823966
34 1804 42355 4.25923739818203
35 1773 42215 4.1999289352126
36 1474 41028 3.59266842156576
37 1418 41343 3.4298430205839
38 1397 30705 4.54974759811106
39 990 22777 4.34648988014225
40 1106 21589 5.12297929501135
41 774 16129 4.7988095976192
42 466 15305 3.04475661548514
43 486 16052 3.02766010465986
44 394 12502 3.15149576067829
45 463 9587 4.82945655575258
46 459 3639 12.6133553173949
47 371 2039 18.1951937224129
48 239 1702 14.042303172738
49 131 2756 4.75326560232221
50 76 753 10.0929614873838
51 47 767 6.1277705345502
52 43 429 10.02331002331
53 37 685 5.4014598540146
54 28 567 4.93827160493827
55 100 778 12.853470437018
56 82 491 16.7006109979633
57 110 654 16.8195718654434
58 90 1288 6.98757763975155
59 86 487 17.6591375770021
60 95 624 15.224358974359
61 81 716 11.3128491620112
62 69 652 10.5828220858896
63 64 694 9.22190201729107
64 53 618 8.57605177993528
65 46 709 6.48801128349788
66 59 532 11.0902255639098
67 70 961 7.2840790842872
68 33 739 4.46549391069012
69 49 730 6.71232876712329
70 28 229 12.2270742358079
71 18 295 6.10169491525424
72 10 420 2.38095238095238
73 9 330 2.72727272727273
74 20 304 6.57894736842105
75 18 168 10.7142857142857
76 24 164 14.6341463414634
77 9 95 9.47368421052632
78 5 73 6.84931506849315
79 2 19 10.5263157894737
80 1 4 25
89 1 3 33.3333333333333
100 4 18 22.2222222222222
101 1 4 25
150 1 6 16.6666666666667[/CODE]

CUDALucas 2.05 does have shift counts but I heard that some earlier versions of CUDALucas did not, not sure which version started having them.

It also have roundoff checking. From the ini file:

# ErrorIterations tells how often the roundoff error is checked. Larger values
# give shorter iteration times, but introduce some uncertainty as to the actual
# maximum roundoff error that occurs during the test. Default is 100.
ErrorIterations=100


It does not however report any error codes

M( 43728863 )C, 0xc5686ccd71b894__, offset = 21872935, n = 2592K, CUDALucas v2.05.1, AID: 5D5719BA469FA6F7CBC2FD6BE6087FDA
M( 43883923 )C, 0x53ad50181724cb__, offset = 1282, n = 2592K, CUDALucas v2.05.1, AID: A809A786CBC695E6A5D02F4764E00769
M( 50152231 )C, 0x8d3a32c3ceffa6__, offset = 25077601, n = 2744K, CUDALucas v2.05.1, AID: C1D57ECE79CCA42481E0B18EE969D425
M( 76092673 )C, 0xb094499608396f__, offset = 38056420, n = 4320K, CUDALucas v2.05.1
M( 50198279 )C, 0x9b5c83ca3b592c__, offset = 2702, n = 2744K, CUDALucas v2.05.1, AID: 586AC98F222EF9EC7CE0F7E6FED2AE6D
M( 43538569 )C, 0x7d762f3dac0893__, offset = 12158, n = 2592K, CUDALucas v2.05.1

If I am not mistaken, Owftheevil put the shifts into cudaLucas starting after v2.03.

If someone could quad-check 72356909, I purchased two more Titan Blacks from ebay, but they appear to be flashed with an overclocked firmware. TDP is set at 300W and the clock is running at 967.

[QUOTE=airsquirrels;444897]If someone could quad-check 72356909, I purchased two more Titan Blacks from ebay, but they appear to be flashed with an overclocked firmware. TDP is set at 300W and the clock is running at 967.[/QUOTE]
Won't MSI Afterburner deal with the overclocking?

I'm afraid a 72M LL run would probably take me a couple of weeks on the GTX460. It takes about 3.5 days on a 40M to 41M DC. I imagine there are bigger guns around here who would answer sooner.