Pedantic question
 

[code]
(with Prime95 v28.7 on a Xeon)
80000363 C - Unverified 2016-02-02 14:21 36.2 6BF3F11F2438E2__ 249.6400
(with CUDALucas on a GTX580)
Manual testing 80000273 C - Unverified 2016-01-15 20:08 18.4 09bf0c4864c3c1__ 239.6050
[/code]

Why are the GHz-days figures significantly different for two adjacent exponents?

Different FFT size. P95 is more stingy when choosing the FFT size. For cudaLucas the faster one is chosen, even if it is bigger than the optimal one. Bigger one means (in the mind of primenet) longer time to test, therefore bigger credit.

edit: oh, actually you got it viceversa... hm... if this is at the limit, and a FFT increase is needed for the bigger expo, this would explain...

[QUOTE=fivemack;424991][code]
(with Prime95 v28.7 on a Xeon)
80000363 C - Unverified 2016-02-02 14:21 36.2 6BF3F11F2438E2__ 249.6400
(with CUDALucas on a GTX580)
Manual testing 80000273 C - Unverified 2016-01-15 20:08 18.4 09bf0c4864c3c1__ 239.6050
[/code]

Why are the GHz-days figures significantly different for two adjacent exponents?[/QUOTE]

If it matters, the CUDALucas test used a 4320K FFT size. Unfortunately the server doesn't log the FFT size used by Prime95, as far as I can tell. I've seen it included in the communication between client and server, it's just not saved anywhere I'm aware of.