![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Aug 2002
10010002 Posts |
![]()
I am going to be running a 77.9 M on a fast P4, that has The highest quality PC2700 i could get my hands on(cl2 @190, CL2.5@220) I would like to see some benchmarks of 2.4-2.5 Ghz P4's(to eliminate processor speed as a variable) doing 4096 ffts. Also what ram timings, type of ram,and chipset are you using. Anyone who can help will be well appreciated. I will be posting my timings as I get them tonight. Thanks.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Aug 2002
33·313 Posts |
![]()
Is it 4096K or 4608K? I ask because for the time I did mine (I gave up after 2 weeks!) I used a 4608K FFT...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Aug 2002
23·32 Posts |
![]()
from the status page at mersenne.org
[code:1]69100000 79300000 562,700 0 299,584 0 0 263,116 0.35 8,866,276 2.604 4096 [/code:1] |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
3·11·239 Posts |
![]()
P4 2.329 GHz is 246 milliseconds
PC870 RDRAM Note: Version 23 will likely speed this up by 7% (or more). |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Aug 2002
23·32 Posts |
![]()
ok, P4 2.46ghz DDR308 cl2
244 ms(average 100 iterations) Lemme find a keyboard and i will try 4/5 (cpu/ram) and some other CL values. I should be able to get DDR380, 266, 333, and 400(2 systems) /edit version 22.8 knocked a ms off the time versus 22.7. That is nearly 22 hours saved. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Aug 2002
2568 Posts |
![]()
How to benchmark such high FFT size?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Aug 2002
4816 Posts |
![]()
in the advanced menu choose time and enter 77900000 for the exponent size, and a number for the #of iterations(i use 100 as there are many things that can skew a benchmark, the larger sample size helps keep errors too a minimum)
Then take the total time and divide by the number of iterations for an average, or use the best time and post it. I like to use the average, but I am not picky. And thank you. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Aug 2002
2·3·29 Posts |
![]()
~224ms
P4 1.8@ 2520MHz RD1120 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Aug 2002
101 Posts |
![]()
This thing is pretty linear until some 'outside' factor kicks in, such as the cache size limitation. Let t be the table size and s be the time in miliseconds, my XP 1800+ is roughly
s = 0.1t - 4 It gives me ~400 ms for ~4000k table size but my test told me 466. Need another approximation once the 256k cache shows. For 512k cache, I suspect it is linear till ~4000k. Once we are in the 200 day range, a day or two wont matter as much. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Aug 2002
Rovereto (Italy)
3·53 Posts |
![]()
Average time on 1,000 it:
P4 1.6a@2.24 (16X140)=260.483 P4 2.0a@2.3 (20X115)=246.706 P4 2.26b@2.6 (17X153)=223.251 P4 2.0a (20X100)=294.332 P4 1.8a@2.52 (18X140)=234.151 Regards from Italy. Guido |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Aug 2002
Rovereto (Italy)
3·53 Posts |
![]()
[quote="Tasuke"]I am going to be running a 77.9 M ...quote]
Hi! My faster P4 should take less than 195 days for testing M77,900,000 wich is not much more than 150 days needed by my "old" TBird 0.9 Ghz for a 10mio digits exp. some time ago. So I'd like to test such a monster number as well... How to ask Primenet for exponents like these? Thanks and regards from Italy. Guido |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Most Wanted | rogue | FermatSearch | 35 | 2021-03-15 14:06 |
New wanted ranges! | ET_ | FermatSearch | 12 | 2016-11-09 13:31 |
Since when was 4096 prime? | Gordon | PrimeNet | 6 | 2015-07-04 17:30 |
Most wanted | kar_bon | Riesel Prime Data Collecting (k*2^n-1) | 15 | 2011-08-09 16:50 |
100 Most Wanted | Citrix | Factoring | 24 | 2004-02-22 01:05 |