mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Other Stuff > Archived Projects > 3*2^n-1 Search

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 2005-01-02, 16:39   #1
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

3,739 Posts
Default New LLR

I have checked out the new LLR35 (12/27/04). I ran the dynamic linux version on a P4 and on an Athlon, both passing about 700 double-checks against "the original LLR" each at about n=260000 -- no errors
paulunderwood is offline  
Old 2005-01-02, 19:46   #2
Jean Penné
 
Jean Penné's Avatar
 
May 2004
FRANCE

22×5×29 Posts
Default LLR 3.5

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulunderwood
I have checked out the new LLR35 (12/27/04). I ran the dynamic linux version on a P4 and on an Athlon, both passing about 700 double-checks against "the original LLR" each at about n=260000 -- no errors
Thank you, Paul, for this QA work ! I think the "Beta" would be soon removed.
Jean
Jean Penné is offline  
Old 2005-01-03, 13:01   #3
Thomas11
 
Thomas11's Avatar
 
Feb 2003

35648 Posts
Default

I've tested the new LLR35 on a 2GHz Opteron.
To get an idea about how the non-SSE2 functions compare in speed to the SSE2 functions, I played a bit with the "CpuSupportsSSE2" switch.

Here are the timings (while testing 3*2^1572660-1):
SSE2 enabled: 4.186 ms/iteration
SSE2 disabled: 4.275 ms/iteration

You see that the time/iteration using the non-SSE2 library is very close to that of the SSE2 library, only about 2% more. This is a great break-through for the Athlon users and the Athlons do not need to fear comparison with the P4s any longer!

Thank you very much, George and Jean!

-- Thomas
Thomas11 is offline  
Old 2005-01-04, 12:58   #4
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

3,739 Posts
Default

During my tests I saw:

0.4 milli-seconds per iteration on the P4 @ 2.47 GHz

0.7 milli-seconds per iteration on the XP2200 @ 1.8 GHz

making Athlons competative at LLR.

Once we have finshed sieving at the end of 2005, I will be putting my Athlons on LLR.

Athlon users:

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2005-01-05 at 19:29 Reason: seconds should have read milli-seconds
paulunderwood is offline  
 



All times are UTC. The time now is 16:07.


Fri Jul 16 16:07:20 UTC 2021 up 49 days, 13:54, 1 user, load averages: 1.19, 1.74, 1.77

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.