[QUOTE=MisterBitcoin;478050]Not sure if it fits in here, but is it possible to run p-1 for a number like that: 10^75005*8-7?
How would the worktodo look like, if it works?[/QUOTE]

Try Pminus1=8,10,75005,-1,B1,B2 where B1 and B2 are the P-1 bounds you want to try.

[QUOTE=Prime95;478052]Try Pminus1=8,10,75005,-1,B1,B2 where B1 and B2 are the P-1 bounds you want to try.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. That worked well. I need some time, but pepi was there to help me.

This is probably a stupid question, but is the current version of Prime95 still limited to 64 threads?

[QUOTE=ixfd64;478999]This is probably a stupid question, but is the current version of Prime95 still limited to 64 threads?[/QUOTE]

I think the limit was increased to 512 or 1024.

That's pretty awesome.

This reminds me: now that there are much more users with access to many-core systems, are there any plans to make the UI less clunky when the user is running a large number of worker windows?

Here's an example of a user running 64 threads: [url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=16865[/url]

Therefore, I have two suggestions:
[LIST=1][*][url=http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=244346&postcount=5]Make the status window scrollable[/url] so that it doesn't stretch off the screen.[*]Make the main MDI scrollable so that the worker windows aren't squished together.[/LIST]
Would these be very hard to implement?

[QUOTE=ixfd64;479033]

Therefore, I have two suggestions:
[LIST=1][*][url=http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=244346&postcount=5]Make the status window scrollable[/url] so that it doesn't stretch off the screen.[*]Make the main MDI scrollable so that the worker windows aren't squished together.[/LIST]
Would these be very hard to implement?[/QUOTE]

I have no idea. I've barely touched the Windows UI code in a decade. I've added it to my to-do list for the next release.

Build 8 now available for download from [url]ftp://mersenne.org/gimps[/url]. Windows and Linux 64-bit only.

Two changes (compare to build 7):

1) Fixes bug where autobench interrupts a torture test.
2) Linked with hwloc 1.11.9. Fixes a crash bug on a new unreleased CPU.

I've noticed that my [c]results.txt[/c] file for [I]some[/I] computers contain seemingly random benchmark information.

[QUOTE][Wed Jan 24 18:02:03 2018]
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=384, Pass2=12288, clm=4 (2 cores, 2 workers): 78.46, 79.98 ms. Throughput: 25.25 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=384, Pass2=12288, clm=2 (2 cores, 2 workers): 48.23, 47.87 ms. Throughput: 41.62 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=384, Pass2=12288, clm=1 (2 cores, 2 workers): 44.51, 41.41 ms. Throughput: 46.61 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=512, Pass2=9216, clm=4 (2 cores, 2 workers): 42.91, 41.93 ms. Throughput: 47.15 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=512, Pass2=9216, clm=2 (2 cores, 2 workers): 41.96, 41.84 ms. Throughput: 47.73 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=512, Pass2=9216, clm=1 (2 cores, 2 workers): 42.82, 41.41 ms. Throughput: 47.50 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=768, Pass2=6144, clm=4 (2 cores, 2 workers): 42.37, 40.14 ms. Throughput: 48.51 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=768, Pass2=6144, clm=2 (2 cores, 2 workers): 40.12, 39.99 ms. Throughput: 49.94 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=768, Pass2=6144, clm=1 (2 cores, 2 workers): 41.02, 39.69 ms. Throughput: 49.58 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=1024, Pass2=4608, clm=4 (2 cores, 2 workers): 43.23, 41.00 ms. Throughput: 47.52 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=1024, Pass2=4608, clm=2 (2 cores, 2 workers): 40.03, 38.45 ms. Throughput: 50.99 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=1024, Pass2=4608, clm=1 (2 cores, 2 workers): 39.70, 39.33 ms. Throughput: 50.62 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=1536, Pass2=3072, clm=4 (2 cores, 2 workers): 43.69, 41.30 ms. Throughput: 47.10 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=1536, Pass2=3072, clm=2 (2 cores, 2 workers): 41.07, 38.47 ms. Throughput: 50.34 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=1536, Pass2=3072, clm=1 (2 cores, 2 workers): 58.20, 52.47 ms. Throughput: 36.24 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=2048, Pass2=2304, clm=4 (2 cores, 2 workers): 94.20, 88.56 ms. Throughput: 21.91 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=2048, Pass2=2304, clm=2 (2 cores, 2 workers): 66.01, 63.22 ms. Throughput: 30.97 iter/sec.
FFTlen=4608K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=2048, Pass2=2304, clm=1 (2 cores, 2 workers): 43.09, 41.50 ms. Throughput: 47.31 iter/sec.
[/QUOTE]

If these are the automatic benchmarks introduced two versions ago, then shouldn't they be written to [c]gwnum.txt[/c] instead?

gwum.txt contains a highly encoded version of the same data

[QUOTE=Prime95;480471]gwum.txt contains a highly encoded version of the same data[/QUOTE]

That makes sense. Thanks.

Hello, I have been unable to get AVX2 support to work in the latest prime95 or even earlier versions. Defaults to FMA3. Disabling FMA3 makes it revert to AVX. Disabling AVX makes it use old traditional FFTs like core2, pentium4, etc. However I have been unable to get AVX2 to work directly. The switch CPUSupportsAVX2=1 does nothing. It's either FMA3, AVX, or traditional.

Using 7820HK CPU on a MSI Throttlebook ;)
Windows 10 Enterprise.

Any ideas? (HWinfo64 shows full AVX2 support).

Stress testing only.