Prime95 version 29.6/29.7/29.8

[ixfd64]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

As soon as the release is official we'll get those updated.

Ah. For some reason, I was under the impression that 29.7 was the official release.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by ixfd64

Ah. For some reason, I was under the impression that 29.7 was the official release.

It was at one point described as the version that would be the eventual release version. Then it was made available, described in the middle of the post as a "pre-release" (see post 1).

V29.7b1 is the first version I've been able to start a prime95 P-1 run over 595M on my hardware. A 605M exponent is currently projected to take a bit over 10 days (2 core-months) on the i7-8750H that provided so much benchmark-stall-debugging fun earlier.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by ixfd64

Ah. For some reason, I was under the impression that 29.7 was the official release.

I was hopeful, but now there is an LLR problem. Looks like there will be a 29.8.

In case you are curious about changing the (minor) version number vs. the build number -- any time the gwnum code changes I must increase the version number. In this way, when LLR or PFGW bugs are reported I can tie it down to which version of gwnum those programs were linked with. If gwnum does not change, then I can just bump the build number.

Changes to the major version number are reserved for big new features -- like AVX-512 support.

[Robert_JD]

No issues so far with Version 29.7. Currently running on Fedora Linux 29 which is at least 5 per cent faster than Win10. The utilization of AVX-512 really speeds things up on my Intel 7960X 32 core, server.

[Runtime Error]

The Gerbicz error check found an error while PRPing on an old laptop!

Turns out it had been overheating (surprise, surprise). After cleaning out the fan & applying some new thermal paste, the PRP test is back to "excellent" confidence!

Hooray for the update!

Edit: it found the error in 29.6.7, now running 29.7.1

[GP2]

PRP=1,3,17,1,99,0,2,1,"4"

{"status":"P", "k":1, "b":3, "n":17, "c":1, "known-factors":["4"], "worktype":"PRP-2", "fft-length":32, "error-code":"00000000", "security-code":"00220022", "program":{"name":"Prime95", "version":"29.7", "build":1, "port":8}, "timestamp":"2019-04-06 05:11:51", ... }

But... (3^17+1)/4 = 103 · 307 · 1021


Edit:

Hmmm... a simple GMP program also gives the residue 0000000000000001 which indicates a PRP. However, with PRP-5 rather than PRP-2, the residue is 00000000014F5FBC.

So it's a case of PRP-2 != P and needing to check bases other than 2. Not an mprime bug.

[R. Gerbicz]

Originally Posted by GP2

But... (3^17+1)/4 = 103 · 307 · 1021


Edit:

Hmmm... a simple GMP program also gives the residue 0000000000000001 which indicates a PRP.

Yes, Fermat pseudoprime for base=2:

(20:42) gp > n=(3^17+1)/4
%13 = 32285041
(20:42) gp > Mod(2,n)^n
%14 = Mod(2, 32285041)
(20:42) gp >

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by Robert_JD

No issues so far with Version 29.7. Currently running on Fedora Linux 29 which is at least 5 per cent faster than Win10.

Any solid data on how power draw compares between the two OSes?

[axn]

Originally Posted by GP2

So it's a case of PRP-2 != P and needing to check bases other than 2. Not an mprime bug.

Default base used for PRP is 3. And the number in question is a base-3 number. Ergo, false positives...

Don't use the same base as the number itself. i.e. while testing (b^n+/-1)/f, use a PRP-base other than b.

EDIT:- Oh, I see that you did the original test with base-2! Interesting...

[kriesel]

Hmm, v29.8b2 made it into the bug fix list in post two, April 11, but not yet into the download links in post 1.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by kriesel

Hmm, v29.8b2 made it into the bug fix list in post two, April 11, but not yet into the download links in post 1.

I wonder if build 2 is still a work in progress.