![]() |
|
|
#23 |
|
May 2006
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
108 Posts |
I have a network monitoring server running on an old laptop with a P-III 500. It also has only 310 Meg of RAM. It is finishing a DoubleCheck it had before the upgrade, but will be running TFs once that completes.
While it may be a bit less efficient, having the v25 client connected to the v5 server makes management much easier. Also, I have been running v24 before anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
276410 Posts |
I suspect that difference in 62-bit and 64-bit factoring may have to do with the way the bits are counted in v24 and v25.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 | |
|
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2·4,909 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
Apr 2007
Spessart/Germany
2×34 Posts |
Hello,
Quote:
I think what you see is a result of the 'off-by-one bug in the factoring benchmark' George Woltman talked about in this thread. In prime95 v25.8 it is corrected. Both versions of prime should need the same time for doing the same TF, but the old version reportet a wrong benchmark. best regards, Matthias |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Oct 2008
n00bville
23·7·13 Posts |
I don´t think that the Core 2 Duo will complete in a week. My overclocked Q6600 Quad Core (4 x 3 GhZ) needs around 35 days for one mersenne number check (4 x one thread - with four threads for one numbers less but never only 1 week).
Last fiddled with by joblack on 2009-01-05 at 11:58 |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 | |
|
Jun 2003
2·3·7·112 Posts |
Quote:
Of course, if we take the fastest non-OC'ed Core 2 Duo (@3.33GHz), which gives a time of 22ms, and scale down the PIII's performance by a factor of 6/5 (since OP's m/c was 500 MHz), then we get a speedup factor of 48. No matter how you slice it, it's a no-brainer. But I have since then reconsidered my position. Go with a Core 2 Quad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 | |
|
Oct 2008
n00bville
23·7·13 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Bemusing Prompter
"Danny"
Dec 2002
California
1001010110112 Posts |
Versions 24.6 and later will have significantly worse performance on Pentium III processors. I think George should use some of the code from version 23.9 in future versions of Prime95, which should use such code instead of the post-23.9 code if it detects a Pentium III processor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
11110000011002 Posts |
IIRC, a reason for dropping optimizations for early CPU models in later prime95 versions is to keep prime95's size from growing too large to fit on a floppy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
May 2008
100010001112 Posts |
People use floppies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Oct 2008
n00bville
23·7·13 Posts |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| LLR Version 3.8.5 is available! | Jean Penné | Software | 11 | 2011-02-20 18:22 |
| LLR Version 3.8.0 is now available! | Jean Penné | Software | 22 | 2010-04-28 07:45 |
| LLR - new version | Cruelty | Riesel Prime Search | 8 | 2006-05-16 15:00 |
| Version 24.14 | Prime95 | Software | 13 | 2006-02-15 16:32 |
| Which LLR version to use... | Cruelty | Riesel Prime Search | 1 | 2005-11-10 15:17 |