M[M]200000201[/M] (Factored)
M[M]300000031[/M] (Unverified)
M[M]300003001[/M]
M[M]300030001[/M] (Factored)
M[M]300300001[/M] (Factored)
M[M]303000001[/M] (Unverified)
M[M]330000001[/M] (Factored)
M[M]550000001[/M]
M[M]600060001[/M]
M[M]600600001[/M]
M[M]606000001[/M]
M[M]880000001[/M]
M[M]900900001[/M]

For quality assurance (QA) purposes, a stage-1 P-1 test was performed on M[M]726064763[/M] without excluding in quotation marks the 12 known factors.
The result is a 145-digit 481-bit composite factor which is a product of 9 out of said 12 known factors.
[code]
3134690288679616476294198707737821625845346697889718910134714712563252971000595991522674571561096903867990492012061630874233422946354627851588807 = 1452129527 × 1023751315831 × 1030134877226297 × 7106729160891631 × 7236079050549607 × 12965740712769703 × 37915764094923857 × 7565365825277361223 × 10702385060027676180416983
[/code]

Perhaps more P-1 tests could factor [COLOR=Red]at least one[/COLOR] of the remaining unfactored Mersenne numbers for small exponents:
M[M]1277[/M], M[M]1619[/M], M[M]1753[/M], M[M]2267[/M], M[M]2273[/M], M[M]2423[/M], M[M]2521[/M], M[M]2713[/M], M[M]2719[/M], M[M]2851[/M], M[M]3049[/M], M[M]3673[/M], M[M]3691[/M], M[M]3847[/M], M[M]3881[/M], M[M]3919[/M],...

[QUOTE=Dobri;610908]Perhaps more P-1 tests could factor [COLOR=Red]at least one[/COLOR] of the remaining unfactored Mersenne numbers for small exponents:
M[M]1277[/M], M[M]1619[/M], M[M]1753[/M], M[M]2267[/M], M[M]2273[/M], M[M]2423[/M], M[M]2521[/M], M[M]2713[/M], M[M]2719[/M], M[M]2851[/M], M[M]3049[/M], M[M]3673[/M], M[M]3691[/M], M[M]3847[/M], M[M]3881[/M], M[M]3919[/M],...[/QUOTE]

What exactly do you propose to run these with?

[QUOTE=storm5510;610918]What exactly do you propose to run these with?[/QUOTE]
My submitted P-1 tests on M[M]1277[/M] and M[M]1619[/M] were performed with Intel Core i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz and just 16GB RAM. Let's assume that many users have much better computers and more RAM.

[QUOTE=Dobri;610924]My submitted P-1 tests on M[M]1277[/M] and M[M]1619[/M] were performed with Intel Core i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz and just 16GB RAM. Let's assume that many users have much better computers and more RAM.[/QUOTE]

I have the exact same hardware. I should have phrased my question differently. What software, I should have asked? [I]Prime95, gpuowl, Yafu,[/I] for example.

[QUOTE=Dobri;610924]My submitted P-1 tests on M[M]1277[/M] and M[M]1619[/M] were performed with Intel Core i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz and just 16GB RAM. Let's assume that many users have much better computers and more RAM.[/QUOTE]

I did P-1 on M1277 with B1=10[SUP]12[/SUP] and B2=2.35*10[SUP]17[/SUP] with GMP-ECM 7.5 years ago back in January 2015, and I wouldn't be surprised if other people went even further.

I did not turn it into primenet because it would just have broken the Ghz-Days system with a gazillion Ghz-Days.

I also did 2 x P+1 runs on M1277 with B1=5.1*10[SUP]11[/SUP] and B2=5.4*10[SUP]16[/SUP] and B2=7.8*10[SUP]16[/SUP].

[QUOTE=storm5510;610927]I have the exact same hardware. I should have phrased my question differently. What software, I should have asked? [I]Prime95, gpuowl, Yafu,[/I] for example.[/QUOTE]
I am using Prime 95 version P95v30.8b15 for P-1 tests while waiting in anticipation for a stable version of P95v30.9 to run ECM more efficiently.
[QUOTE=ATH;610931]...
I did not turn it into primenet because it would just have broken the Ghz-Days system with a gazillion Ghz-Days.
...[/QUOTE]
That is correct, the Ghz-Days statistics for "Totals Overall" is disproportionate now.

[QUOTE=ATH;610931]I did P-1 on M1277 with B1=10[SUP]12[/SUP] and B2=2.35*10[SUP]17[/SUP] with GMP-ECM 7.5 years ago back in January 2015, and I wouldn't be surprised if other people went even further.
[/QUOTE]

I looked at the details for M1277 a while back and saw where someone had ran a really large P-1. I did not pay attention to when it was completed. If a person includes all the ECM data, it takes a while for it to come up on Primenet. M1277 goes way beyond a "recreational test!"

This one is for the less ambitious lads and gals, a notch below the 332,192,809 100-MDigit threshold, please consider the DC of M[M]332192779[/M].

I'm wondering why there was a need to recheck the trial factoring bits of M[M]161803403[/M] from 2[SUP]73[/SUP] to 2[SUP]78[/SUP]. Kriesel's hardware is very reliable, there wouldn't have been any errors.