20120424, 04:22  #23 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2·3·13·83 Posts 

20120424, 13:38  #24  
"Åke Tilander"
Apr 2011
Sandviken, Sweden
2·283 Posts 
Quote:
Source code Prime95 version 27.6 from gwnum.h: Code:
#define MAX_PRIME 79300000L /* Maximum number of x87 bits */ #define MAX_PRIME_SSE2 595800000L /* SSE2 bit limit */ #define MAX_PRIME_AVX 595800000L /* AVX bit limit */ #define MAX_FFTLEN 4194304L /* 4M FFT max for x87 */ #define MAX_FFTLEN_SSE2 33554432L /* 32M FFT max for SSE2 */ #define MAX_FFTLEN_AVX 33554432L /* 32M FFT max for AVX */ Last fiddled with by aketilander on 20120424 at 13:42 

20160106, 20:53  #25  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
110011011101_{2} Posts 
Quote:


20160107, 08:21  #26 
Oct 2015
2·7·19 Posts 
I just started it on 27.4 to see how long it would take. The estimate was May 2018 on my 3930k hahaha (I stopped it). Why can't I get access to a meteorological super computer when I need one :P

20160107, 23:13  #27 
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
37·89 Posts 
I was tempted to do the same, but then I don't think 27.4 had the AVX support and that would just be dumb to forgo that nicety.

20160108, 06:46  #28  
Oct 2015
2×7×19 Posts 
Quote:
"Resuming primality test of 595999993 using AVX Core2 type3 FFT length 32M, Pass1=2K, Pass2=16K, 10 threads" 

20160108, 21:38  #29  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
37×89 Posts 
Quote:
Then again, I had issues with 28.7 and the 32M FFT size on the largest possible exponent for that version... throws instant roundoff errors on all the systems I attempted it with. Of course that could have been specifically related to the AVX2 code... perhaps AVX would do better? May have to do some experimenting with disabling FMA to see if it behaves, at the expense of worse performance. 

20160111, 02:08  #30 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
7,411 Posts 
I think if you put FFT2=32M as part of the worktodo.txt entry then v28.x will test exponents as high as 595999993.

20160111, 11:18  #31 
"Åke Tilander"
Apr 2011
Sandviken, Sweden
2×283 Posts 
Oh, since this is the day of whishes, what about a FFT for LL of the ("smallest") billion digit Mersennes? It would be so nice if it could be included in the next version of Prime95. It is of course not necessary to have FFTs for all LLs in between.

20160125, 00:59  #32 
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
CDD_{16} Posts 
Oh crumb... *large* selfverified exponent
Well, my mission of making sure no exponents are selfverified has hit a roadblock today.
M601248421 I can't test an exponent that size using v28.x with the max FFT of 32M I'm not sure what NOoE had for this particular exponent but he sure seemed to go after it with gusto... doing a lot of TF and P1 on it before throwing a pair of simultaneous LL tests at it. Only one assignment for it (back in 20140418) but running on two different systems with different shiftcounts. Looks like I'll be leaving that one asis for now. Even if a future version of Prime95 supported larger FFT, I might leave that one alone anyway because there are better things to be doing with a system for however many months it would take to do a triplecheck of that guy. I'm not sure how this was run... the reporting app version (for both) was: Windows64,Prime95,v28.5,build 1 And the CPU it ran on was (also for both runs): Intel(R) Core(TM) i74810MQ CPU @ 2.80GHz The CPU may have been (almost definitely) upgraded since it was first assigned and started nearly 2 years ago. One problem I have with them is that even though both reported the same 64bit residue and had different shift counts, both of them reported an identical error code of "7F00FF00" What are the odds that two runs on two CPUs using an app version that I wasn't aware could even handle an exponent that large would report the exact same error code? I know there are some who are suspicious of NOoE's results and this one in particular is eyebrow raising for the reasons mentioned above. I'm sure the reason for running two at the same time was to compare residues along the way, and they were turned in within 12 hours of each other. If I could, I'd ask NOoE how often he had to start the runs over again from a previous matching iteration because one or the other mismatched. The error codes involved sure make it seem like they ran into significant problems along the way. And if it someone managed to run that at the max 32M FFT size, I'd say it was well past the upper limit of what that FFT size could realistically handle... is that safe to say? 
20160125, 01:51  #33  
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
10010010101110_{2} Posts 
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Force FFTsize to be used  kruoli  Software  4  20171117 18:14 
Pi(x) value for x at 10^16 size  edorajh  Computer Science & Computational Number Theory  6  20170308 20:28 
Size optimization  Sleepy  Msieve  14  20111020 10:27 
Exponent Size Gap  MiniGeek  PrimeNet  8  20070325 07:29 
FFTSize  andi314  Lounge  14  20070122 00:21 