View Single Post
2020-03-11, 11:06   #18
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter

Jun 2011
Thailand

216416 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by EugenioBruno Is my interpretation of that sentence correct: "the people doing LL are going fast, so we're starting to fall behind in TFs that might avoid those LL checks from being done"?
Yes, except that "avoid" is "delay". If you get a LL/PRP assignment which is not TF-ed enough, you have two options, either do TF to optimum level by yourself, or proceed with LL/PRP ignoring the fapt that TF was not properly done. Both cases, on long term, will result in delays, compared with the case when somebody with specialized hardware (like me) makes the TF. In the first case, my hardware ca do TF faster than yours, and in the second case, you may work weeks to LL/PRP one exponent for which a factor could have been found much faster.

Quote:
 This is confusing to me. What is a DC wavefront in relation to TFs? If my understanding is correct, TFs are done *before* any LL (or DC) test is done. I don't unrestand, what do TFs have to do at all with DCs?
Here you forget hardware progress and Moore's Law. Imagine we do TF for 45M range to 68 bits, because that was optimum at that time, with the CPU, when FC front was at 45M and DC front was much behind (say 37M). Meantime, 10 years passed, and we are at 65M first test front, and 45M DC front, but some clever guy invented a toy called GPU which can TF about 200 times faster. Beside of raising the front-line TF for 65M from former 70 bits to 72 bits (that's where the "gpu_to_72" came), we also can see that we could clear exponents faster at DC front, if we first TF them to 70 (from 68). But this lasts as long as we still have to clear exponents between 45M and 65M (because over 65M already are benefiting from the GPUs). That's the idea. Take all numbers within this paragraph with a grain of salt (they are just for illustrative purpose, but fit with right numbers, this is how the things were).

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2020-03-11 at 11:09