[QUOTE=preda;552386]P-1 bounds getting lower too. A pity, I liked P-1 :)
(I always thought P-1 is so much more beautiful than TF :), but TF is done early to high-bits and too little opportunity is left for P-1)[/QUOTE]GPU-TF threw off the balance of TF-PM1. In the old days (pre-GPU) there was alternation with low-TF, then P-1, then high-TF, then LL. GPU-TF changed the equation by making TF much cheaper. It might be useful to reexamine the methodology with the current set of GPU-TF, CPU/GPU-PM1, CPU/GPU-PRP+Cert software and see if the current order and limits of factoring methods is still optimal.

I'm working from very old and sluggish memories here, but the problem with running p-1 on GPUs was having enough memory to set useful bounds, right? That's why we do the gpu-tf; more discrete sizes?

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;552462]I'm working from very old and sluggish memories here, but the problem with running p-1 on GPUs was having enough memory to set useful bounds, right? That's why we do the gpu-tf; more discrete sizes?[/QUOTE]CUDAPm1 was rather limiting. I've run full GPUto72 labeled mersenne.ca bounds P-1 up to 999M exponents on 16-GB Tesla P100 GPUs in gpuowl on Colab. [M]999999937[/M], and PrimeNet labeled bounds to 500M on an 8GB RX480.
GPUs go higher on TF because they are much faster at the single precision computations used in TF relative to DP-type computations used in primality testing or P-1; ratios ~11 to 40 or so are common. CPUs' speed ratios are much smaller, typically 0.7 to 1.5.

[QUOTE=preda;552386]P-1 bounds getting lower too. A pity, I liked P-1 :)

(I always thought P-1 is so much more beautiful than TF :), but TF is done early to high-bits and too little opportunity is left for P-1)[/QUOTE]

P-1 bounds. Really? I posted a topic about this in the [I]gpuOwl[/I] forum group two days ago. It has pretty much been ignored. I pointed out the diversity of what the different programs suggest for bounds on the same test. I suppose there is no such thing as going too high. Too low would be different. Doing so may require a repeated test with the bounds higher. I do not want to be responsible for that.

I ran a lot of P-1's in the pre-GPU days despite not being able to make a direct connection between P-1 bounds and TF start and stop bits.

I guess in this case, your topic was "ignored" because no one had a good answer. :smile: Especially, when P-1 are going to be reevaluated now.

[QUOTE=kruoli;552768]I guess in this case, your topic was "ignored" because no one had a good answer. :smile: Especially, when P-1 are going to be reevaluated now.[/QUOTE]

I understand what you mean by reevaluated, in this case. Their necessity, now that GPU's are becoming more powerful all the time. Recently, I have seen P-1 tests which indicate the exponent was trial-factored to 78 bits. 80, and beyond, TF's will not be all that far behind for those who can run them in what they feel is a practical period of time.

[QUOTE=kruoli;552768]...when P-1 [B]bounds[/B] are going to be reevaluated now.[/QUOTE]

Oops, I was missing a word there. :blush: Didn't catch it fast enough.

[QUOTE=storm5510;552780]I understand what you mean by reevaluated, in this case.
Their necessity, now that GPU's are becoming more powerful all the time.[/QUOTE]I don't think that's what [i]kruoli[/i] meant, but rather the the calculus of optimal P-1 bounds (and TF limits) will change with the new PRP+Cert worktype that should, eventually replace LL+DC (or equivalent) with a single test and small verification, thereby eliminating (approximately) half the effort, therefore the effort applied to TF and P-1 should be approximately half what it currently is (in broad terms).

[QUOTE=kruoli]Oops, I was missing a word there. :blush: Didn't catch it fast enough.
[/QUOTE]

Do not feel bad, this is a daily occurrence for me. James made one below. He missed it. I do that one too.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich]I don't think that's what kruoli meant, but rather the the calculus of optimal P-1 bounds (and TF limits) will change with the new PRP+Cert worktype that should, eventually replace LL+DC (or equivalent) with a single test and small verification, thereby eliminating (approximately) half the effort, therefore the effort applied to TF and P-1 should be approximately half what it currently is (in broad terms).[/QUOTE]

Half the effort from TF and P-1 suggests finishing at lower end-bits and lower bounds. That would speed things up. Mid 70's TF levels have jumped out about 10-million beyond the wavefront. [I]chatsall[/I] wrote something not long ago about increasing to 77 bits for TF regarding GPUto72. In any case, things are changing.

Remember that each bit level of TF is twice the effort of the one before it. So, 1 bit level less. And that leaves more factors in the low end of the P-1 search to be found.
We live in interesting times.
:chalsall:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;552818]
We live in interesting times.
:chalsall:[/QUOTE]


That we do. Any idea when George might let [I]Prime95 v30[/I] out of its cage? :smile: