![]() |
|
|
#78 |
|
May 2010
7638 Posts |
Try this one:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
I quite division it
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England
207710 Posts |
Thanks, that's running fine.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
I quite division it
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England
40358 Posts |
Actually, now that I have some more ram coming for my 32-bit system could you please make me an .exe with:
SmallPrimes of 40e6 and SieveSize of 4e6. (lm4.exe)) and if you can: SmallPrimes of 60e6 and SieveSize of 6e6. (lm6.exe) SmallPrimes of 80e6 and SieveSize of 8e6. (lm8.exe) Much appreciated. ![]() @axn I suppose it's not worth making a version where SmallPrimes and SieveSize are entered at the command line? Then I could twiddle to my heart's content without pestering anyone. (Once someone compiles it for me. )
Last fiddled with by Flatlander on 2010-06-29 at 09:44 Reason: Thinking out loud. |
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
May 2010
499 Posts |
I don't know whether any of these work, since I don't have enough RAM to test them. You might want to compare a small 0.01T range with NewPGen's output to make sure there are no differences between the two files. But here you go:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
May 2010
499 Posts |
Another one:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
May 2010
1111100112 Posts |
I've come across a strange error when trying to compile lm8.exe, and Windows gives a "virtual memory is increasing" prompt. Another try fails, but the third attempt seems to be successful. As I said before, you should compare a small 0.01T range with NewPGen's output to make sure that there are no differences between the two files.
Last fiddled with by Oddball on 2010-06-29 at 20:53 |
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
I quite division it
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England
31×67 Posts |
That's great! Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Jun 2003
125308 Posts |
i hope you're using the patched code for the 32 bit build
|
|
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
May 2010
499 Posts |
All of the .exe programs I attached were done with the patched code. The only things that weren't done with the patched code were some of my earlier ranges, but I didn't re-do them since they were under the safe p<280M threshold (I used p=217M).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
"Michael Kwok"
Mar 2006
1,181 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
May 2010
499 Posts |
That's because Turbo Core was on. With all 6 cores loaded and no background tasks, I'm getting 85M p/sec, or 14.2M p/sec/core.
Doing things like browsing the web and using Microsoft Word drops the rate to about 82M p/sec, but it's still much faster than my old Pentium 4. |
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Perpetual benchmark thread... | Xyzzy | Hardware | 897 | 2023-06-15 13:46 |
| Hardware Benchmark Jest Thread for 100M exponents | joblack | Hardware | 285 | 2022-08-06 21:50 |
| LLR benchmark thread | Oddball | Riesel Prime Search | 5 | 2010-08-02 00:11 |
| sr5sieve Benchmark thread | axn | Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 | 25 | 2010-05-28 23:57 |
| New Sieve Thread Discussion | Citrix | Prime Sierpinski Project | 15 | 2005-08-29 13:56 |