mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-03-08, 06:47   #12
Ethan Hansen
 
Ethan Hansen's Avatar
 
Oct 2005

4010 Posts
Default

It turned out that the numbers I posted for the Xeon system were using 1 LL test but 2 threads for the 2M test. The timings were 0.066 s/iteration with 2 threads running, 0.071 s/iteration with only 1 thread running. In other words, the slower timing vs. the P4 desktop processor for single thread/single CPU held up.

There was no difference in iteration speed vs. number of threads for 1M FFT sizes on the Xeon system, nor did the P4 desktop machine show differences for either 1M or 2M FFT sizes. It appears that the larger L2 cache allows the Xeon to make use of the additional thread. Larger FFT sizes showed similar gains:

Code:
Single LL test timings (sec/iteration)

FFT Size   1 Thread   2 Threads    Difference (%)
------------------------------------------------------
1M           0.036      0.036         0.0
2M           0.071      0.066         7.6
3M           0.113      0.104         8.7
4M           0.152      0.140         8.6
5M           0.191      0.176         8.5

CPU: 3GHz Irwindale, 2MB L2 (ECC, ATC)
O/S: Win 2003 R2/x64
Ethan Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-08, 07:07   #13
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

63608 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime95 View Post
The memory setting is irrelevant. Can you also do 1 LL test with 1 cpu per test? Thanks.
1 LL test running only on 1 cpu: 1LL1cpu.jpg
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-08, 07:59   #14
Andi47
 
Andi47's Avatar
 
Oct 2004
Austria

2×17×73 Posts
Default

After running the benchmarks on a P4, my results.zip reads:

Code:
[Wed Mar 07 19:12:29 2007]
Compare your results to other computers at http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.40GHz
CPU speed: 3412.39 MHz, with hyperthreading
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, Prefetch, MMX, SSE, SSE2
L1 cache size: 16 KB
L2 cache size: 2048 KB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 64 bytes
TLBS: 64
Prime95 32-bit version 25.2, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 768K FFT length: 22.004 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 26.911 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 30.584 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 37.821 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 45.622 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 55.141 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 61.128 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 80.714 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 97.237 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 117.358 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 130.477 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 164.583 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 204.281 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 245.080 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 270.316 ms.
Timing FFTs using 2 threads on 1 physical CPUs.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 21.732 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 26.143 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 30.807 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 35.050 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 42.137 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 51.112 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 56.185 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 73.355 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 88.461 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 107.821 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 119.177 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 150.825 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 186.760 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 225.700 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 247.443 ms.
Best time for 58 bit trial factors: 8.033 ms.
Best time for 59 bit trial factors: 8.089 ms.
Best time for 60 bit trial factors: 8.266 ms.
Best time for 61 bit trial factors: 8.426 ms.
Best time for 62 bit trial factors: 11.327 ms.
Best time for 63 bit trial factors: 11.390 ms.
Best time for 64 bit trial factors: 13.129 ms.
Best time for 65 bit trial factors: 13.132 ms.
Best time for 66 bit trial factors: 13.148 ms.
Best time for 67 bit trial factors: 13.073 ms.
I have also run one exponent with FFT sizes of 1, 2 and 6 MB and two expos with FFT sizes of 1024/1024k, 1024/2048k, 2048/2048k and 6M/6M.

I put my benchmarks into the attached zipped excel file.

Notes:
When running only one expo, I have no benefits of running it in two threads over running in one thread for small FFT size (1M). I get some benefit of hyperthreading with bigger FFT (2M, 6M).

Running two exponents in one thread per expo is slightly faster than running them in two threads per expo and gives a bit more throughput than running one expo in two threads.

DON'T run two exponents in two threads per expo (two worker threads, each running on two threads) if you run exponents with different FFT sizes. When I tried this, one was running at approx. the same speed as if I would run one expo in one thread, and the other worker thread was running extremely slow.


Bug report:

* When I enter the exponents manually (Advanced - test) to the worker-threads one and two, then select Test - Stop and then Test - Resume, only Worker-thread 1 restarts, while worker-thread 2 keeps waiting for work. When I enter the expo to worker-thread 2 again using Advanced - Test, the expo will properly resume. (but I don't understand the behaviour: Worker-thread 2 runs one or two iterations, then stops, and then resumes again and keeps running.)

* The program does not check if the exponent I entered in the Advanced menu already exists in the worktodo.txt file.

After doing the benchmarks, my worktodo file reads:

Code:
AdvancedTest=20000753
AdvancedTest=100000007
AdvancedTest=35343361
AdvancedTest=20000753
AdvancedTest=20000753
AdvancedTest=20000801
AdvancedTest=20000801
AdvancedTest=38005129
AdvancedTest=38005129
AdvancedTest=100000039
AdvancedTest=100000039
AdvancedTest=35343361
AdvancedTest=35343361
[Thread #2]
Attached Files
File Type: zip Benchmark_P95_252.zip (3.3 KB, 104 views)
Andi47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-08, 17:00   #15
mctaylor
 

22×1,399 Posts
Default v 252 on Pentium D 3.4 GHz

Pentium D 3.4 GHz, 2 cores, 2048KB L2
(system HP Compaq dc7700 CMT)

Code:
[Mar 8 11:48] Timing 56 iterations at 768K FFT length.  Best time: 21.003 ms.
[Mar 8 11:48] Timing 48 iterations at 896K FFT length.  Best time: 25.384 ms.
[Mar 8 11:48] Timing 42 iterations at 1024K FFT length.  Best time: 29.194 ms.
[Mar 8 11:48] Timing 33 iterations at 1280K FFT length.  Best time: 35.963 ms.
[Mar 8 11:48] Timing 28 iterations at 1536K FFT length.  Best time: 43.698 ms.
[Mar 8 11:48] Timing 24 iterations at 1792K FFT length.  Best time: 52.164 ms.
[Mar 8 11:48] Timing 21 iterations at 2048K FFT length.  Best time: 57.942 ms.
[Mar 8 11:48] Timing 16 iterations at 2560K FFT length.  Best time: 81.105 ms.
[Mar 8 11:48] Timing 14 iterations at 3072K FFT length.  Best time: 94.189 ms.
[Mar 8 11:49] Timing 12 iterations at 3584K FFT length.  Best time: 111.722 ms.
[Mar 8 11:49] Timing 10 iterations at 4096K FFT length.  Best time: 124.859 ms.
[Mar 8 11:49] Timing 10 iterations at 5120K FFT length.  Best time: 157.632 ms.
[Mar 8 11:49] Timing 10 iterations at 6144K FFT length.  Best time: 196.064 ms.
[Mar 8 11:49] Timing 10 iterations at 7168K FFT length.  Best time: 233.976 ms.
[Mar 8 11:49] Timing 10 iterations at 8192K FFT length.  Best time: 262.341 ms.
[Mar 8 11:49] Timing FFTs using 2 threads.
[Mar 8 11:49] Timing 56 iterations at 768K FFT length.  Best time: 12.204 ms.
[Mar 8 11:49] Timing 48 iterations at 896K FFT length.  Best time: 14.496 ms.
[Mar 8 11:49] Timing 42 iterations at 1024K FFT length.  Best time: 17.545 ms.
[Mar 8 11:50] Timing 33 iterations at 1280K FFT length.  Best time: 19.262 ms.
[Mar 8 11:50] Timing 28 iterations at 1536K FFT length.  Best time: 23.106 ms.
[Mar 8 11:50] Timing 24 iterations at 1792K FFT length.  Best time: 27.347 ms.
[Mar 8 11:50] Timing 21 iterations at 2048K FFT length.  Best time: 30.644 ms.
[Mar 8 11:50] Timing 16 iterations at 2560K FFT length.  Best time: 40.288 ms.
[Mar 8 11:50] Timing 14 iterations at 3072K FFT length.  Best time: 48.690 ms.
[Mar 8 11:50] Timing 12 iterations at 3584K FFT length.  Best time: 57.979 ms.
[Mar 8 11:50] Timing 10 iterations at 4096K FFT length.  Best time: 64.879 ms.
[Mar 8 11:50] Timing 10 iterations at 5120K FFT length.  Best time: 81.837 ms.
[Mar 8 11:50] Timing 10 iterations at 6144K FFT length.  Best time: 102.712 ms.
[Mar 8 11:50] Timing 10 iterations at 7168K FFT length.  Best time: 125.059 ms.
[Mar 8 11:51] Timing 10 iterations at 8192K FFT length.  Best time: 141.648 ms.
[Mar 8 11:51] Timing trial factoring of M35000011 with 58 bit length factors.  Best time: 8.086 ms.
[Mar 8 11:51] Timing trial factoring of M35000011 with 59 bit length factors.  Best time: 8.989 ms.
[Mar 8 11:51] Timing trial factoring of M35000011 with 60 bit length factors.  Best time: 9.350 ms.
[Mar 8 11:51] Timing trial factoring of M35000011 with 61 bit length factors.  Best time: 8.106 ms.
[Mar 8 11:51] Timing trial factoring of M35000011 with 62 bit length factors.  Best time: 11.167 ms.
[Mar 8 11:51] Timing trial factoring of M35000011 with 63 bit length factors.  Best time: 11.171 ms.
[Mar 8 11:51] Timing trial factoring of M35000011 with 64 bit length factors.  Best time: 12.999 ms.
[Mar 8 11:51] Timing trial factoring of M35000011 with 65 bit length factors.  Best time: 13.235 ms.
[Mar 8 11:51] Timing trial factoring of M35000011 with 66 bit length factors.  Best time: 13.304 ms.
[Mar 8 11:51] Timing trial factoring of M35000011 with 67 bit length factors.  Best time: 13.307 ms.
[Mar 8 11:51] Benchmark complete.
[Mar 8 11:51] Work thread terminated.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-08, 19:39   #16
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

24×32×23 Posts
Default

I also did the 1024K and 6M FFT test for comparison, and I put together my previous 2048K results in 1 picture.

First section in each picture is 1 LL on 1 cpu, second section is 1LL on 2 cpu, and last secton is 2 LL with 1 on each cpu:

1024K FFT.jpg
2048K FFT.jpg
6M FFT.jpg
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-10, 17:31   #17
T.Rex
 
T.Rex's Avatar
 
Feb 2004
France

32·103 Posts
Default 25.2 for Linux ?

Hi George,
When do you plan to deliver a v25.2 for Linux ?
Thanks,
Tony
T.Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-11, 14:36   #18
TheJudger
 
TheJudger's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Mar 2005
Germany

11·101 Posts
Default

Hello George,

perhaps you should print the average and the worst iteration time during the benchmark on the screen, too. What do you think?

Do you plan a parallel version of the TF-code?
TheJudger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-11, 14:57   #19
Peter Nelson
 
Peter Nelson's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

232 Posts
Default

I have a single core Northwood Pentium 4 here which has "hyperthreading" capability running Win XP Pro (and also Suse linux). 8KByte L1, 512KByte L2.

Most of the time I have hyperthreading turned off in the bios and I don't really like it.

Intel seem to be moving away from this anyway going for multiple non-hyperthreading cores ie proper multithreaded.

Others with this capability may also have it turned off, as I do.

I don't know the installed base of HT capable machines, but think more useful would be along the same lines but for true multicore, particularly those newer cpus that have shared L3 cache or similar meaning close cooperation is possible without reference to (slow) main memory.

It would also be nice to concentrate on true 64 bit operation. Since factoring works faster on 64 than 32 bits, similar speedup might be realised in the LL testing.

I'm also likely to run Vista 64 bit on a dual or quadcore shortly.

Anyway as for v25.2:

With hyperthreading DISABLED in bios, your software still thinks it is enabled (YOU NEED TO INTERROGATE THIS WITH SOME CALL, not just the processor type/capability flags?) The 2-virtual cpu code runs slower than the 1cpu code.
With hyperthreading ENABLED in bios, your software runs a little faster on small FFT sizes and a little slower on big FFT sizes.

So if you were being REALLY clever you'd test if HT is enabled and if it is, only use the extra worker thread when the FFT size is below some threshold. Seems to me like effort for little advantage. The threading idea is good but probably more useful in true multicore cpus (to keep total test time down to reasonable levels as exponents become larger).

Details below:

Last fiddled with by Peter Nelson on 2007-03-11 at 15:38
Peter Nelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-11, 15:33   #20
Peter Nelson
 
Peter Nelson's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

232 Posts
Default P4 3Ghz Northwood results detail

WITH HT *DISABLED* IN BIOS:

[Sun Mar 11 15:17:24 2007]
Compare your results to other computers at http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz
CPU speed: 2992.66 MHz, with hyperthreading
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, Prefetch, MMX, SSE, SSE2
L1 cache size: 8 KB
L2 cache size: 512 KB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 128 bytes
TLBS: 64
Prime95 32-bit version 25.2, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 768K FFT length: 23.186 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 27.450 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 30.595 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 39.578 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 48.823 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 57.799 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 64.861 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 84.178 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 105.459 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 125.400 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 141.816 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 179.842 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 226.284 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 273.080 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 308.496 ms.
Timing FFTs using 2 threads on 1 physical CPUs.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 25.326 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 29.916 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 33.167 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 43.234 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 55.648 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 66.414 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 70.234 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 93.954 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 114.887 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 135.460 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 152.460 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 199.095 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 260.410 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 334.139 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 391.477 ms.
Best time for 58 bit trial factors: 9.749 ms.
Best time for 59 bit trial factors: 9.756 ms.
Best time for 60 bit trial factors: 9.805 ms.
Best time for 61 bit trial factors: 9.818 ms.
Best time for 62 bit trial factors: 10.668 ms.
Best time for 63 bit trial factors: 10.682 ms.
Best time for 64 bit trial factors: 13.174 ms.
Best time for 65 bit trial factors: 13.132 ms.
Best time for 66 bit trial factors: 13.105 ms.
Best time for 67 bit trial factors: 13.089 ms.

WITH HT *ENABLED* IN BIOS:

[Sun Mar 11 15:26:06 2007]
Compare your results to other computers at http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz
CPU speed: 2992.66 MHz, with hyperthreading
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, Prefetch, MMX, SSE, SSE2
L1 cache size: 8 KB
L2 cache size: 512 KB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 128 bytes
TLBS: 64
Prime95 32-bit version 25.2, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 768K FFT length: 23.109 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 27.420 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 30.570 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 39.466 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 48.636 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 57.451 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 64.166 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 83.606 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 104.953 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 124.922 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 141.060 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 179.460 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 226.755 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 273.680 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 308.800 ms.
Timing FFTs using 2 threads on 1 physical CPUs.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 22.483 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 26.655 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 29.592 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 39.682 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 49.625 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 59.491 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 64.807 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 86.928 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 106.009 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 128.122 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 142.461 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 184.568 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 233.335 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 294.632 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 350.759 ms.
Best time for 58 bit trial factors: 9.822 ms.
Best time for 59 bit trial factors: 9.748 ms.
Best time for 60 bit trial factors: 9.784 ms.
Best time for 61 bit trial factors: 9.825 ms.
Best time for 62 bit trial factors: 10.671 ms.
Best time for 63 bit trial factors: 10.683 ms.
Best time for 64 bit trial factors: 13.158 ms.
Best time for 65 bit trial factors: 13.134 ms.
Best time for 66 bit trial factors: 13.093 ms.
Best time for 67 bit trial factors: 13.109 ms.
Peter Nelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-11, 19:28   #21
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

2×3,943 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJudger View Post
perhaps you should print the average and the worst iteration time during the benchmark on the screen, too. What do you think?

Do you plan a parallel version of the TF-code?
The problem with an average time is that it can be skewed by another process grabbing a timeslice. Yes, the best time is not indicative of what you should expect in a real-world LL test, but you can expect to get with in a few percent of that.

I've no plans to work on multi-thread TF code. Anyone interested in that can simply run two TF worker threads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Nelson View Post
It would also be nice to concentrate on true 64 bit operation. Since factoring works faster on 64 than 32 bits, similar speedup might be realised in the LL testing.

With hyperthreading DISABLED in bios, your software still thinks it is enabled (YOU NEED TO INTERROGATE THIS WITH SOME CALL, not just the processor type/capability flags?)

With hyperthreading ENABLED in bios, your software runs a little faster on small FFT sizes and a little slower on big FFT sizes. So if you were being REALLY clever you'd test if HT is enabled and if it is, only use the extra worker thread when the FFT size is below some threshold. Seems to me like effort for little advantage.
True 64-bit operation is already there. The speedup is minimal in LL testing because the only real advantage is access to a few more SSE2 registers.

Unfortunately, determining whether hyperthreading is enabled is way too complicated. I don't think Intel could have made it harder if they tried.

I had hoped that there would be a simple rule to decide whether hyper-threaded machines should run multi-threaded LL tests. Unfortunately, the benchmarks have dashed my hope. By default, I'll run one non-multithreaded LL test per physical CPU. Advanced users can figure out if turning on multi-threading would be of some small benefit.
Prime95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-04, 12:56   #22
James Heinrich
 
James Heinrich's Avatar
 
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario

2×5×7×53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Nelson View Post
Intel seem to be moving away from this anyway going for multiple non-hyperthreading cores ie proper multithreaded.
Two straight cores are better than a single hyperthreaded core, but hyperthreading is not dead -- in 18 months or so Intel's Nehalem will likely re-introduce hyperthreading (see here, for example).
James Heinrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Benchmarks Pjetrode Information & Answers 3 2018-01-07 23:23
Where are the Benchmarks Sandman192 Homework Help 17 2012-04-05 19:03
Benchmarks MurrayInfoSys Information & Answers 3 2011-04-14 17:10
LLR benchmarks Oddball No Prime Left Behind 11 2010-08-06 21:39
Benchmarks for 24.12 Prime95 Software 60 2005-06-11 07:35

All times are UTC. The time now is 22:59.


Fri May 20 22:59:53 UTC 2022 up 36 days, 21:01, 0 users, load averages: 1.02, 1.19, 1.22

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔