View Single Post
Old 2020-01-08, 22:40   #34
wfgarnett3's Avatar
"William Garnett III"
Oct 2002
Bensalem, PA

2·43 Posts

Originally Posted by Prime95 View Post
Good question. Most likely we will still do double-checking, but with less urgency. There are still vulnerabilities.

One is fraud. Who would bother to submit fake results? Well, for 22 years no one. This year we have our first deranged individual finding pleasure doing this.

Two is programmer error. Prime95 29.4 had an bug where it would report that it had done Gerbicz checking but did not. There were also small windows where it was vulnerable to a hardware error. Does gpuOwl or prime95 29.6 have any small windows where they are vulnerable to a hardware error?

Three is human error in copying/pasting manual results. We've seen this happen recently in TF results.

You should still go to 2^76. The answer would be different if there was a CUDA program that did PRP and GIMPS decided not to do double-checking. Your goal is to maximize the number of exponents your GPU can clear in a given time period. What prime95 does and gpuOwl does is irrelevant. You can only clear exponents by either TF or LL which definitely requires double-checking.

The above is your quote from May of last year.

Now for my GeForce 1050 I see on mersenneforum that gpuOwl now supports Nvidia video cards and uses OpenCL, and when I tested kriesel's exe gpuowl PRP file over a week ago the iteration time is near CudaLucas's LL iteration time.

So since a seond PRP test using gpuOwl on GPU is not needed technically (just like Prime95 technically only needs one PRP test), in a technical sense when I do gpu factoring for using mfaktc I should now only go up to 75 bits and not 76 bits, correct?

Last fiddled with by wfgarnett3 on 2020-01-08 at 22:45
wfgarnett3 is offline   Reply With Quote