RIP DCTF.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Gordon

PM sent

OK, you're not wrong; nor am I. It appears you are, by far, the most productive DCTF'er to 72 currently! Thanks!

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by chalsall

OK, you're not wrong; nor am I. It appears you are, by far, the most productive DCTF'er to 72 currently! Thanks!

When you add on the 14 that the GTX-660 also churns through that's 46 a day..isn't anyone else doing any?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Gordon

When you add on the 14 that the GTX-660 also churns through that's 46 a day..isn't anyone else doing any?

A few others are, but you're by far the largest producer (to 72) at the moment.

Keep in mind also that when I do the "Days Ahead" projections, I use the average production over the last 30 days; over the last five days we've averaged 58.2 a day.

[Mark Rose]

Originally Posted by Gordon

When you add on the 14 that the GTX-660 also churns through that's 46 a day..isn't anyone else doing any?

You can roughly see who is doing what by looking at the DCTF Workers' Progress page. Divide the GHz-d of work by the number of assignments. Roughly, 3 is to 70, 6 is to 71, and 12 is to 72.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Mark Rose

You can roughly see who is doing what by looking at the DCTF Workers' Progress page.

Thanks for pointing that out Mark. Also, another useful report is the DCTF Worker's Progress over the last Week.

BTW Gordon, you're Factors Found vs Attempts ratio is a little low (but not beyond reasonableness). Probably just bad luck (someone else getting your factors! ), but have you run the mfaktc full self-test on your cards recently, just as a precaution?

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Thanks for pointing that out Mark. Also, another useful report is the DCTF Worker's Progress over the last Week.

BTW Gordon, you're Factors Found vs Attempts ratio is a little low (but not beyond reasonableness). Probably just bad luck (someone else getting your factors! ), but have you run the mfaktc full self-test on your cards recently, just as a precaution?

These are the 2 I use for my weekly/monthly progress reports

[Mark Rose]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Thanks for pointing that out Mark. Also, another useful report is the DCTF Worker's Progress over the last Week.

Yet another page I was unaware of :)

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Thanks for pointing that out Mark. Also, another useful report is the DCTF Worker's Progress over the last Week.

BTW Gordon, you're Factors Found vs Attempts ratio is a little low (but not beyond reasonableness). Probably just bad luck (someone else getting your factors! ), but have you run the mfaktc full self-test on your cards recently, just as a precaution?

Since I switched to LL-TF to 75 bits I have a hit ratio of 3 / 282.
Seems low but is it unreasonable?

[NickOfTime]

Originally Posted by petrw1

Since I switched to LL-TF to 75 bits I have a hit ratio of 3 / 282.
Seems low but is it unreasonable?

Well, mine is even poorer with 2/625 at TF 75...
8/375 TF 74

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Thanks for pointing that out Mark. Also, another useful report is the DCTF Worker's Progress over the last Week.

BTW Gordon, you're Factors Found vs Attempts ratio is a little low (but not beyond reasonableness). Probably just bad luck (someone else getting your factors! ), but have you run the mfaktc full self-test on your cards recently, just as a precaution?

Those results are a mixture from 3 different cards

Palit GTX-660
Gigabyte GTX-660
Gigabyte GTX-970

Just out of curiosity I am running a -ST2 test on the 970 right now.

I spent a couple of weeks recently running factoring on exponents up in the 970m+ range and was finding a factor roughly every 60 or so tests, took the 660 7 seconds to go from 66-67 bits.

Didn't I read somewhere on here that as bit depth increases, odds of finding a factor decrease? Or is my memory playing up again...

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Those results are a mixture from 3 different cards

Palit GTX-660
Gigabyte GTX-660
Gigabyte GTX-970

Just out of curiosity I am running a -ST2 test on the 970 right now.

I spent a couple of weeks recently running factoring on exponents up in the 970m+ range and was finding a factor roughly every 60 or so tests, took the 660 7 seconds to go from 66-67 bits.

Didn't I read somewhere on here that as bit depth increases, odds of finding a factor decrease? Or is my memory playing up again...

Results from the -ST2 test on the 970