mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-05-19, 09:47   #12
Thecmaster
 
"Arvid Björklin"
Apr 2016
Pitea, Sweden

73 Posts
Default

One thing you need to know about 1650. That card comes without rtx core. 1660 and up have rtx core. So if the rtx is part of the performance boost of the new nvidia cards.

Gaming benchmarks shows it's somewhere between 1050ti and 1060

I would go for a 1660 or 1660ti. With those you got batter bang for the money.

Last fiddled with by Thecmaster on 2019-05-19 at 09:49
Thecmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-19, 13:28   #13
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

2×5×479 Posts
Default

I believe the 1660s also lack RTX cores (aka Ray Tracing), hence they are called GTX. Don't quote me on it, though.

I would really like somebody to take one for the team, and test out a 1650 on TF. It could turn out to be the most value for money for this workload.

Last fiddled with by axn on 2019-05-19 at 13:29
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-19, 14:43   #14
Thecmaster
 
"Arvid Björklin"
Apr 2016
Pitea, Sweden

10010012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
I believe the 1660s also lack RTX cores (aka Ray Tracing), hence they are called GTX. Don't quote me on it, though.

I would really like somebody to take one for the team, and test out a 1650 on TF. It could turn out to be the most value for money for this workload.
RT
Ooooh. Yeah. After some more reading I got it wrong. 1660 supports ray tracing but without RT cores.

However 1650 is about 30% less performance than 1060 and 30% more than 1050. So to build a new system it can absolutely be a good choise with the 1650. But to upgrade from 1050 I would go for 1660.
1660 =200$ for 100% more performance
1650= 130-140 for 30% more performance

Sry for misinformation in the last post. 1660 don't have rt cores.
Thecmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-19, 14:55   #15
nomead
 
nomead's Avatar
 
"Sam Laur"
Dec 2018
Turku, Finland

23×41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thecmaster View Post
Gaming benchmarks shows it's somewhere between 1050ti and 1060
In this case, gaming benchmarks are completely irrelevant because of architectural improvements between Pascal (GTX10) and Turing (GTX16 / RTX20) cards. The 1650 has about 46% of the CUDA cores of the 2060, and in factoring use, the slower memory doesn't matter. So a rough guesstimate would give about 750-800 GHzd/day depending on the clock speed. If it's the 75W version without a PCIe power connector, it probably won't go that high, possibly closer to 700. Still, that would put it in GTX 1070 territory, but just for this one workload (mfaktc).
nomead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-19, 20:42   #16
Thecmaster
 
"Arvid Björklin"
Apr 2016
Pitea, Sweden

4916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomead View Post
In this case, gaming benchmarks are completely irrelevant because of architectural improvements between Pascal (GTX10) and Turing (GTX16 / RTX20) cards. The 1650 has about 46% of the CUDA cores of the 2060, and in factoring use, the slower memory doesn't matter. So a rough guesstimate would give about 750-800 GHzd/day depending on the clock speed. If it's the 75W version without a PCIe power connector, it probably won't go that high, possibly closer to 700. Still, that would put it in GTX 1070 territory, but just for this one workload (mfaktc).
Yeah. I know gaming don't have anything to do with this. It's just to compare different cards.

For what I can read the 1660ti does perform for tf as the 1070. Not the 1650. The 1650 have 900 CUDA cores the 1660 have 1400 and the 1660ti have around 1500.

The gaming benchmarks shows the performance difference between cards and it is roughly the same difference as it performs in TF.

1650 is the worst card Nvidia have released ever. And as I wrote. If you want to upgrade from 1050 go with the 1660.
Thecmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-20, 01:55   #17
nomead
 
nomead's Avatar
 
"Sam Laur"
Dec 2018
Turku, Finland

14816 Posts
Default

Well, going by the numbers posted in the GTX 1660 Ti thread and the benchmarks listed on mersenne.ca, the 1660Ti is above the 1080Ti in factoring performance, _not_ like the 1070. I don't have any actual GTX10-series hardware to test on, so I have to trust these posted benchmark tables. But if you have different information about them, please tell.

The CUDA cores are not the same in Turing anymore. Pascal only had a single clock INT16 multiply and INT32 was several operations. Now Turing has a single clock INT32 multiply and that's why trial factoring, as done with mfaktc, is so much faster.

Last fiddled with by nomead on 2019-05-20 at 02:07 Reason: added cuda core info
nomead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-27, 05:32   #18
wfgarnett3
 
wfgarnett3's Avatar
 
"William Garnett III"
Oct 2002
Bensalem, PA

5616 Posts
Default

When you go to Test-->Status for my PRP test for my M85XXXXXX exponent, is it my imagination that the probability for "The chance that your exponent you are testing will yield a Mersenne prime is about 1 in ......." is significantly worse then when I did a first time LL in the previous version of the software?

If I am not imagining things, why is it?
wfgarnett3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-27, 23:17   #19
moebius
 
moebius's Avatar
 
Jul 2009
Germany

7158 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomead View Post
Well, going by the numbers posted in the GTX 1660 Ti thread
......



And what about LL-performance with CUDALucas? Is the GTX 1070 faster or the GTX 1660TI?
moebius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-28, 01:47   #20
nomead
 
nomead's Avatar
 
"Sam Laur"
Dec 2018
Turku, Finland

14816 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moebius View Post
And what about LL-performance with CUDALucas? Is the GTX 1070 faster or the GTX 1660TI?
Well, we were talking about GPU factoring...

But in the case of CUDALucas, there is no magic rabbit to pull out of the hat for the Turing architecture. FP64 performance is what it is, sorely lacking.

Just guessing, in CUDALucas, the GTX 1070 should be about 20% faster than the GTX 1660 Ti. There's 25% more cores on the 1070, but the 1660Ti can probably run at a somewhat higher clock speed. Both architectures have the same ratio of FP64 to FP32 execution units, though.
nomead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-28, 03:38   #21
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

17·263 Posts
Default

Are there any plans to update the Math page to cover PRP?

At the risk of taking the GIMPS walk of shame (I really don't know how PRP works), if PRP is being considered to replace LL why are we running PRP on exponents already LL/DC'd?

As a thorough test of PRP?
To see which have more factors?
Other?
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-28, 03:44   #22
wfgarnett3
 
wfgarnett3's Avatar
 
"William Garnett III"
Oct 2002
Bensalem, PA

1268 Posts
Default

Sorry if I wasn't clear -- The PRP test on M85XXXXXX I am doing now is a first time test.

I was referring to my last LL first time test on a completely different M85XXXXXX.

If in both cases they are first time tests why is the probability stated in Prime95 of the exponent being a Mersenne prime significantly worse with PRP than LL?

Last fiddled with by wfgarnett3 on 2019-05-28 at 03:45
wfgarnett3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Impact of AI xilman Lounge 19 2017-01-26 16:03
What are the Primality Tests ( not factoring! ) for Fermat Numbers? Erasmus Math 46 2014-08-08 20:05
GPU TF work and its impact on P-1 davieddy Lounge 161 2011-08-09 10:27
POWER CONSUMPTION idle versus Prime95 Peter Nelson Hardware 10 2005-01-16 19:42
Prescott impact to prime95. nucleon Hardware 35 2003-07-22 06:02

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:53.

Tue Dec 1 12:53:34 UTC 2020 up 82 days, 10:04, 2 users, load averages: 2.04, 2.31, 2.48

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.