[QUOTE][CODE]2020-06-05 17:13:16 Radeon Pro W5500-0 OpenCL compilation in 3.10 s
2020-06-05 17:13:17 Radeon Pro W5500-0 77936867 OK 0 loaded: blockSize 400, 0000000000000003
2020-06-05 17:13:21 Radeon Pro W5500-0 77936867 OK 800 0.00%; 2982 us/it; ETA 2d 16:34; 1579c241dc63eca6 (check 1.27s)
2020-06-05 17:23:18 Radeon Pro W5500-0 77936867 OK 200000 0.26%; 2991 us/it; ETA 2d 16:35; f0b04b45b0855bd2 (check 1.28s)
2020-06-05 17:33:15 Radeon Pro W5500-0 77936867 OK 400000 0.51%; 2979 us/it; ETA 2d 16:10; c03f94396a5aa29e (check 1.27s)
2020-06-05 17:43:17 Radeon Pro W5500-0 77936867 OK 600000 0.77%; 3004 us/it; ETA 2d 16:32; b9decd65ca71b629 (check 1.28s)

2020-09-04 13:24:28 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti-0 OpenCL compilation in 2.02 s
2020-09-04 13:24:29 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti-0 77936867 OK 0 loaded: blockSize 400, 0000000000000003
2020-09-04 13:24:32 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti-0 77936867 OK 800 0.00%; 2481 us/it; ETA 2d 05:43; 1579c241dc63eca6 (check 1.04s)
2020-09-04 13:32:54 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti-0 77936867 OK 200000 0.26%; 2514 us/it; ETA 2d 06:18; f0b04b45b0855bd2 (check 1.04s)
2020-09-04 13:41:12 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti-0 77936867 OK 400000 0.51%; 2483 us/it; ETA 2d 05:29; c03f94396a5aa29e (check 1.05s)
2020-09-04 13:49:27 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti-0 77936867 OK 600000 0.77%; 2473 us/it; ETA 2d 05:07; b9decd65ca71b629 (check 1.06s)

2020-09-04 17:42:56 GeForce GTX 980 Ti-0 OpenCL compilation in 1.83 s
2020-09-04 17:42:58 GeForce GTX 980 Ti-0 77936867 OK 0 loaded: blockSize 400, 0000000000000003
2020-09-04 17:43:04 GeForce GTX 980 Ti-0 77936867 OK 800 0.00%; 4221 us/it; ETA 3d 19:23; 1579c241dc63eca6 (check 1.73s)
2020-09-04 17:57:13 GeForce GTX 980 Ti-0 77936867 OK 200000 0.26%; 4258 us/it; ETA 3d 19:56; f0b04b45b0855bd2 (check 1.75s)
2020-09-04 18:11:28 GeForce GTX 980 Ti-0 77936867 OK 400000 0.51%; 4263 us/it; ETA 3d 19:49; c03f94396a5aa29e (check 1.75s)
2020-09-04 18:25:42 GeForce GTX 980 Ti-0 77936867 OK 600000 0.77%; 4262 us/it; ETA 3d 19:34; b9decd65ca71b629 (check 1.75s)

2020-09-25 01:11:43 GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER-0 OpenCL compilation in 1.35 s
2020-09-25 01:11:45 GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER-0 77936867 OK 0 loaded: blockSize 400, 0000000000000003
2020-09-25 01:11:50 GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER-0 77936867 OK 800 0.00%; 3966 us/it; ETA 3d 13:51; 1579c241dc63eca6 (check 1.65s)
2020-09-25 01:34:08 GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER-0 77936867 OK 200000 0.26%; 5188 us/it; ETA 4d 16:01; f0b04b45b0855bd2 (check 2.18s)
2020-09-25 01:51:15 GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER-0 77936867 OK 400000 0.51%; 5123 us/it; ETA 4d 14:21; c03f94396a5aa29e (check 2.12s)
2020-09-25 02:08:30 GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER-0 77936867 OK 600000 0.77%; 5164 us/it; ETA 4d 14:56; b9decd65ca71b629 (check 2.13s)[/CODE][/QUOTE][URL="https://pcpartpicker.com/product/GKMTwP/evga-geforce-rtx-2080-super-8-gb-ko-gaming-video-card-08g-p4-2083-kr"]2080 Super[/URL][CODE]2020-09-27 15:56:43 GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER-0 OpenCL compilation in 1.85 s
2020-09-27 15:56:45 GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER-0 77936867 OK 0 loaded: blockSize 400, 0000000000000003
2020-09-27 15:56:48 GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER-0 77936867 OK 800 0.00%; 2623 us/it; ETA 2d 08:47; 1579c241dc63eca6 (check 1.10s)
2020-09-27 16:05:42 GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER-0 77936867 OK 200000 0.26%; 2675 us/it; ETA 2d 09:46; f0b04b45b0855bd2 (check 1.11s)
2020-09-27 16:14:38 GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER-0 77936867 OK 400000 0.51%; 2678 us/it; ETA 2d 09:40; c03f94396a5aa29e (check 1.10s)
2020-09-27 16:23:45 GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER-0 77936867 OK 600000 0.77%; 2730 us/it; ETA 2d 10:39; b9decd65ca71b629 (check 1.14s)[/CODE]

What's the power draw of the W5500 and how does a Radeon VII compare throughput-wise with the same exponent? If the RTX 5500 has similar numbers which it should (DP ratio looks the same), if the 4GB model runs as well as the 8GB model, and if the card can be made to work (last I checked that was a big if), then the results are not as terrible as I expected. The price of an RTX 5500 is currently £170, on a throughput-per-dollar basis it looks like it could at least see the R7 ahead in the distance instead of being in division 3 (ignoring power draw and density limitations which of course is a hard sell).

[Code]2020-09-28 11:54:26 gfx900 RX Vega AMD OpenCL compilation in 2.52 s
2020-09-28 11:54:27 gfx900 RX Vega AMD 77936867 OK 0 loaded: blockSize 400, 0000000000000003
2020-09-28 11:54:28 gfx900 RX Vega AMD 77936867 OK 800 0.00%; 1206 us/it; ETA 1d 02:07; 1579c241dc63eca6 (check 0.53s)
2020-09-28 11:58:31 gfx900 RX Vega AMD 77936867 OK 200000 0.26%; 1216 us/it; ETA 1d 02:16; f0b04b45b0855bd2 (check 0.54s)
2020-09-28 12:02:35 gfx900 RX Vega AMD 77936867 OK 400000 0.51%; 1219 us/it; ETA 1d 02:15; c03f94396a5aa29e (check 0.54s)
2020-09-28 12:06:40 gfx900 RX Vega AMD 77936867 OK 600000 0.77%; 1219 us/it; ETA 1d 02:11; b9decd65ca71b629 (check 0.54s)[/Code]

[Code]2020-09-28 10:43:59 Tesla P100-PCIE-16GB-0 OpenCL compilation in 1.72 s
2020-09-28 10:43:59 Tesla P100-PCIE-16GB-0 77936867 OK 0 loaded: blockSize 400, 0000000000000003
2020-09-28 10:44:00 Tesla P100-PCIE-16GB-0 77936867 OK 800 0.00%; 728 us/it; ETA 0d 15:45; 1579c241dc63eca6 (check 0.41s)
2020-09-28 10:46:25 Tesla P100-PCIE-16GB-0 77936867 OK 200000 0.26%; 728 us/it; ETA 0d 15:43; f0b04b45b0855bd2 (check 0.41s)
2020-09-28 10:48:51 Tesla P100-PCIE-16GB-0 77936867 OK 400000 0.51%; 728 us/it; ETA 0d 15:41; c03f94396a5aa29e (check 0.41s)
2020-09-28 10:51:17 Tesla P100-PCIE-16GB-0 77936867 OK 600000 0.77%; 728 us/it; ETA 0d 15:38; b9decd65ca71b629 (check 0.41s)[/Code]

[QUOTE=M344587487;558083]What's the power draw of the W5500 and how does a Radeon VII compare throughput-wise with the same exponent? If the RTX 5500 has similar numbers which it should (DP ratio looks the same), if the 4GB model runs as well as the 8GB model, and if the card can be made to work (last I checked that was a big if), then the results are not as terrible as I expected. The price of an RTX 5500 is currently £170, on a throughput-per-dollar basis it looks like it could at least see the R7 ahead in the distance instead of being in division 3 (ignoring power draw and density limitations which of course is a hard sell).[/QUOTE]The W5500 uses ~100W.

We haven't figured out a way to get a "normal" consumer card to work.

One nice feature of the W5500 is that it is a single slot card.

[QUOTE=petrw1;557810]Why does it ignore
-log 50000
in config.txt.?

I still get progress updats every 10000.

[CODE]-user petrw1 -cpu colab -device 0 -log 50000 -maxAlloc 4000[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I faked it out; This is my Colab GPUOwl run script (most of it borrowed from others here; see the last couple lines.

[CODE]import subprocess
import os
import os.path
from google.colab import drive
import sys
if not os.path.exists('/content/drive/My Drive'):
drive.mount('/content/drive')
%cd '/content/drive/My Drive/HOOT/'
!cp libstdc* /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/

statinfo = os.stat('./worktodo.txt')
if statinfo.st_size < 50:
print ('WARNING, small file size indicates little or no gpuowl work to do')
!LD_LIBRARY_PATH="lib:${LD_LIBRARY_PATH}" && chmod 777 gpuowl.exe && chmod 777 worktodo.txt
!./gpuowl.exe >>gpuowllog.txt 2>&1 &
print('gpuowl launched in background')
!nvidia-smi -L
!tail -f gpuowl.log | egrep '00000|P2|factor'[/CODE]

2nd last line: Tells me which GPU I got; P100 is several times 5 faster than K80, P4 or T4
I "Interrupt Execution"; "Factory Reset" and try again until I get one.

Last line gives me only:
- Every 100,000 P1 iterations
- Each P2 iteration
- Factor/No Factor lines

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;557869]Somehow we got gpuowl to work on our integrated graphics. (It runs so slow that it isn't worth doing, but it is neat that it works at all!)[/QUOTE]

I saw your post and thought it would be an interesting experiment to try gpuowl on my Celeron J4105 with UHD 600 integrated graphics. I got mfakto working on it so why not try gpuowl as well. It looks like it failed on the OpenCL version.

[CODE]2020-09-29 21:11:18 gpuowl v6.11-380-g79ea0cc
2020-09-29 21:11:18 Note: not found 'config.txt'
2020-09-29 21:11:18 device 0, unique id ''
2020-09-29 21:11:18 Intel(R) UHD Graphics 600-0 58279579 FFT: 3M 1K:6:256 (18.53 bpw)
2020-09-29 21:11:18 Intel(R) UHD Graphics 600-0 Expected maximum carry32: 48550000
2020-09-29 21:11:19 Intel(R) UHD Graphics 600-0 OpenCL args "-DEXP=58279579u -DWIDTH=1024u -DSMALL_HEIGHT=256u -DMIDDLE=6u -DPM1=0 -DMM_CHAIN=1u -DMM2_CHAIN=1u -DMAX_ACCURACY=1 -DWEIGHT_STEP_MINUS_1=0xc.6dc0cf04225b8p-5 -DIWEIGHT_STEP_MINUS_1=-0x8.f3ac43205c59p-5 -cl-unsafe-math-optimizations -cl-std=CL2.0 -cl-finite-math-only "
2020-09-29 21:11:20 Intel(R) UHD Graphics 600-0 ASM compilation failed, retrying compilation using NO_ASM
2020-09-29 21:11:21 Intel(R) UHD Graphics 600-0 OpenCL compilation error -11 (args -DEXP=58279579u -DWIDTH=1024u -DSMALL_HEIGHT=256u -DMIDDLE=6u -DPM1=0 -DMM_CHAIN=1u -DMM2_CHAIN=1u -DMAX_ACCURACY=1 -DWEIGHT_STEP_MINUS_1=0xc.6dc0cf04225b8p-5 -DIWEIGHT_STEP_MINUS_1=-0x8.f3ac43205c59p-5 -cl-unsafe-math-optimizations -cl-std=CL2.0 -cl-finite-math-only -DNO_ASM=1)
2020-09-29 21:11:21 Intel(R) UHD Graphics 600-0 -cl-std OpenCLC version greater than OpenCL (API) version
-cl-std OpenCLC version greater than OpenCL (API) version
2020-09-29 21:11:21 Intel(R) UHD Graphics 600-0 Exception gpu_error: BUILD_PROGRAM_FAILURE clBuildProgram at clwrap.cpp:246 build
2020-09-29 21:11:21 Intel(R) UHD Graphics 600-0 Bye[/CODE]

This was the Windows compiled gpuowl from this thread [url]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=25624[/url]. I also attached a picture of the GPUZ screen for the UHD 600.

I have an I3-9100 and an I5-8250U that I might experiment on as well if/went I have the time. Did gpuowl work in Windows or Linux?

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;557869]Somehow we got gpuowl to work on our integrated graphics. (It runs so slow that it isn't worth doing, but it is neat that it works at all!)[CODE]2020-09-25 13:26:07 Intel(R) UHD Graphics 630-1 OpenCL compilation in 6.71 s
2020-09-25 13:26:21 Intel(R) UHD Graphics 630-1 77936867 OK 0 loaded: blockSize 400, 0000000000000003
2020-09-25 13:26:56 Intel(R) UHD Graphics 630-1 77936867 OK 800 0.00%; 29530 us/it; ETA 26d 15:17; 1579c241dc63eca6 (check 11.88s)
2020-09-25 15:07:23 Intel(R) UHD Graphics 630-1 77936867 OK 200000 0.26%; 30198 us/it; ETA 27d 04:05; f0b04b45b0855bd2 (check 11.97s)[/CODE][/QUOTE]
Here's the Vega iGPU from a 4700u (7nm, 7 GPU cores, supposedly 1600MHz):

[code]pn50@pn50:~/Documents/git/gpuowlv6$ ./gpuowl -prp 77936867 -maxAlloc 4000
2020-10-13 13:28:29 gpuowl v6.11-380-g79ea0cc-dirty
2020-10-13 13:28:29 Note: not found 'config.txt'
2020-10-13 13:28:29 config: -prp 77936867 -maxAlloc 4000
2020-10-13 13:28:29 device 0, unique id ''
2020-10-13 13:28:29 gfx900-0 77936867 FFT: 4M 1K:8:256 (18.58 bpw)
2020-10-13 13:28:29 gfx900-0 Expected maximum carry32: 583B0000
2020-10-13 13:28:29 gfx900-0 OpenCL args "-DEXP=77936867u -DWIDTH=1024u -DSMALL_HEIGHT=256u -DMIDDLE=8u -DPM1=0 -DAMDGPU=1 -DMM_CHAIN=1u -DMM2_CHAIN=2u -DMAX_ACCURACY=1 -DWEIGHT_STEP_MINUS_1=0x1.5885a1af9d807p-2 -DIWEIGHT_STEP_MINUS_1=-0x1.01ca19102fbbfp-2 -cl-unsafe-math-optimizations -cl-std=CL2.0 -cl-finite-math-only "
2020-10-13 13:28:32 gfx900-0 OpenCL compilation in 2.41 s
2020-10-13 13:29:24 gfx900-0 77936867 OK 0 loaded: blockSize 400, 0000000000000003
2020-10-13 13:29:24 gfx900-0 validating proof residues for power 8
2020-10-13 13:29:24 gfx900-0 Proof using power 8
2020-10-13 13:29:50 gfx900-0 77936867 OK 800 0.00%; 11753 us/it; ETA 10d 14:26; 1579c241dc63eca6 (check 16.44s)
2020-10-13 14:15:10 gfx900-0 77936867 OK 200000 0.26%; 13572 us/it; ETA 12d 05:04; f0b04b45b0855bd2 (check 16.44s)[/code]

[CODE]
2020-10-19 23:45:38 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB-0 OpenCL compilation in 1.79 s
2020-10-19 23:45:38 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB-0 77936867 OK 0 loaded: blockSize 400, 0000000000000003
2020-10-19 23:45:38 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB-0 validating proof residues for power 8
2020-10-19 23:45:38 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB-0 Proof using power 8
2020-10-19 23:45:39 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB-0 77936867 OK 800 0.00%; 445 us/it; ETA 0d 09:39; 1579c241dc63eca6 (check 0.30s)
2020-10-19 23:47:07 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB-0 77936867 OK 200000 0.26%; 444 us/it; ETA 0d 09:35; f0b04b45b0855bd2 (check 0.30s)
2020-10-19 23:48:37 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB-0 77936867 OK 400000 0.51%; 444 us/it; ETA 0d 09:34; c03f94396a5aa29e (check 0.30s)
2020-10-19 23:50:05 Tesla V100-SXM2-16GB-0 77936867 OK 600000 0.77%; 443 us/it; ETA 0d 09:31; b9decd65ca71b629 (check 0.30s)
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=DrobinsonPE;558317]I have an I3-9100 and an I5-8250U that I might experiment on as well if/went I have the time. Did gpuowl work in Windows or Linux?[/QUOTE]Xyzzy is a Linux fan.
There's a reference thread for gpuowl and mfakto on integrated graphics. With considerable Wndows experience. [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=25717[/URL]
Older (MUCH older) versions of gpuowl might work where recent versions don't, perhaps allowing LLDC or PRP. Running PRP tests on igp in V1.9's 8M fft would take probably months each, and lack the PRP proof capability.

I found that my GPU does not reach 350W power limit(~295W, but reach 1965Mhz which is ~200 Mhz higher than it is in mfaktc.)

[code][neutron@neutron-GPU gpuowl]$ ./gpuowl -prp 77936867 -maxAlloc 20000 2020-10-21 17:29:12 gpuowl v7.0-64-g85e1f5e-dirty
2020-10-21 17:29:12 Note: not found 'config.txt'
2020-10-21 17:29:12 config: -prp 77936867 -maxAlloc 20000
2020-10-21 17:29:12 device 0, unique id ''
2020-10-21 17:29:13 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 FFT: 4M 1K:8:256 (18.58 bpw)
2020-10-21 17:29:13 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 OpenCL args "-DEXP=77936867u -DWIDTH=1024u -DSMALL_HEIGHT=256u -DMIDDLE=8u -DCARRY64=1 -DCARRYM64=1 -DMM_CHAIN=1u -DMM2_CHAIN=2u -DMAX_ACCURACY=1 -DWEIGHT_STEP_MINUS_1=0x1.5885a1af9d807p-2 -DIWEIGHT_STEP_MINUS_1=-0x1.01ca19102fbbfp-2 -cl-unsafe-math-optimizations -cl-std=CL2.0 -cl-finite-math-only "
2020-10-21 17:29:13 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867

2020-10-21 17:29:13 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 OpenCL compilation in 0.01 s
2020-10-21 17:29:13 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 maxAlloc: 19.5 GB
2020-10-21 17:29:13 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 P1(0) 0 bits
2020-10-21 17:29:13 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 PRP starting from beginning
2020-10-21 17:29:14 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 OK 0 loaded: blockSize 400, 0000000000000003
2020-10-21 17:29:14 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 validating proof residues for power 8
2020-10-21 17:29:14 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 Proof using power 8
2020-10-21 17:29:16 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 OK 800 0.00% 1579c241dc63eca6 1552 us/it + check 0.68s + save 0.12s; ETA 1d 09:36
2020-10-21 17:29:30 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 10000 0.01% fc4f135f7cf4ad29 1564 us/it
2020-10-21 17:29:46 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 20000 0.03% 3cd1bd9d5e09cbc5 1568 us/it
2020-10-21 17:30:02 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 30000 0.04% c4e0ff35e3290d98 1568 us/it
2020-10-21 17:30:17 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 40000 0.05% dffe1b1b0d748128 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:30:33 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 50000 0.06% 52e286945371ed29 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:30:49 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 60000 0.08% 0945da4dc08bdd95 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:31:04 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 70000 0.09% 7131fa4eb77f4bb2 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:31:20 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 80000 0.10% 8d76071d27ee4221 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:31:36 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 90000 0.12% 0bacff453b2f470e 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:31:51 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 100000 0.13% 6d7296b9e2830f50 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:32:07 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 110000 0.14% 8cbfd4435622bda7 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:32:23 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 120000 0.15% 79ae5dad855057ad 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:32:39 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 130000 0.17% 50c97bcbf876231f 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:32:54 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 140000 0.18% e1db15f897271496 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:33:10 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 150000 0.19% 127631386c6a9b17 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:33:26 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 160000 0.21% 25b7b6206fc6f085 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:33:41 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 170000 0.22% 416816b0d9f4bba8 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:33:57 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 180000 0.23% 6bee5d054f770861 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:34:13 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 190000 0.24% f37f068f014b18a0 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:34:29 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 OK 200000 0.26% f0b04b45b0855bd2 1569 us/it + check 0.69s + save 0.12s; ETA 1d 09:52
2020-10-21 17:34:45 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 210000 0.27% 43eb2fc2424d8aac 1569 us/it
2020-10-21 17:35:01 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 220000 0.28% a1081c6dc6a7689f 1585 us/it
2020-10-21 17:35:16 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 230000 0.30% 2387818d3d3d0d01 1573 us/it
2020-10-21 17:35:32 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 240000 0.31% a9deae45055e5216 1572 us/it
2020-10-21 17:35:48 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 250000 0.32% 89fcab15218f7cac 1572 us/it
2020-10-21 17:36:04 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 260000 0.33% 55da428da4cf928a 1576 us/it
2020-10-21 17:36:19 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 270000 0.35% dc349756c5f05abf 1573 us/it
2020-10-21 17:36:35 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 280000 0.36% 3564af24488443f4 1572 us/it
2020-10-21 17:36:51 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 290000 0.37% 63fb281a06f78198 1576 us/it
2020-10-21 17:37:07 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 300000 0.38% 990aa099aad5bf9c 1573 us/it
2020-10-21 17:37:10 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 Stopping, please wait..
2020-10-21 17:37:11 GeForce RTX 3090-0 77936867 OK 302000 0.39% eeb2e0e45213c10c 1572 us/it + check 0.70s + save 0.12s; ETA 1d 09:54
2020-10-21 17:37:11 GeForce RTX 3090-0 Exiting because "stop requested"
2020-10-21 17:37:11 GeForce RTX 3090-0 Bye
[/code]

[QUOTE=Neutron3529;560506]I found that my GPU does not reach 350W power limit(~295W, but reach 1965Mhz which is ~200 Mhz higher than it is in mfaktc.)

[code][neutron@neutron-GPU gpuowl]$ ./gpuowl -prp 77936867 -maxAlloc 20000
1564 us/it
[/code][/QUOTE]

Thanks for the timing info!

In general I would recommend a smaller -maxAlloc, e.g. "-maxAlloc 18G" (just to be sure you don't overfill the GPU RAM which would produce a slowdown), but in this case you ran without P-1 so that doesn't matter.

The performance is not great, but that was expected given the heavy use of FP64 in the current implementation.