mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > GMP-ECM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-02-11, 00:23   #12
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

2·3·5·313 Posts
Default

For Windows, it would have been nice if someone could downgrade the build/solution files vs2010 to vs2008 and post. For comparison, CUDA toolkit contains scripts for 2005, 2008, 2010 -- that is kinda user friendly. Not everyone has 2010. (Well, temporarily one can get the trial license.)
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-11, 00:27   #13
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

1064610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
For Windows, it would have been nice if someone could downgrade the build/solution files vs2010 to vs2008 and post. For comparison, CUDA toolkit contains scripts for 2005, 2008, 2010 -- that is kinda user friendly. Not everyone has 2010. (Well, temporarily one can get the trial license.)
If you want it, why don't you do it?
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-11, 01:21   #14
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

740710 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
Not everyone has 2010. (Well, temporarily one can get the trial license.)
VS 2010 is free (the express edition). Yes, it is 32-bit only, but you can get the Windows SDK for free which contains the 64-bit compiler.
Prime95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-11, 02:51   #15
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

2×3×5×313 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
If you want it, why don't you do it?
Because it is ugly! I am not talking about .sln files; for the .vcxproj -> .vcproj conversion most of the internet based advices amount to 'you might be best served by using the "New project from existing code" wizard to build a new VC2008 project for the code rather than trying to convert the existing project.' It is best done by the authors who know their source and dependencies.

I'll try the free version.
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-11, 08:03   #16
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

2·3·347 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Is the code specific to a particular GPU? How portable is it?
It uses CUDA, thus requires an nVidia GPU supporting CC 1.3 or higher.
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-11, 08:09   #17
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

82216 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
Each stage one took 70 seconds on a GTX-460.
The GTX 460 has 7 MP's. Did you do 224 curves in parallel or more? Are there memory latencies that are hidden by doing more?
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-11, 08:59   #18
debrouxl
 
debrouxl's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

97710 Posts
Default

On my GT540M (admittedly a fairly low-end model, with 2 MPs), under Debian unstable x86_64, gpu_ecm with 64 curves in parallel seems to be somewhat slower than CPU-based stage 1 (tuned GMP-ECM binary) running on Core i7-2670QM @ 2.2 GHz.
I have tested B1 bounds from 5e4 to 16e6, and 32, 64 or 128 parallel curves. 32 curves has throughput markedly slower than 64, but 128 is hardly better than 64 for throughput.

Last fiddled with by debrouxl on 2012-02-11 at 09:00
debrouxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-11, 09:14   #19
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

2×5,323 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
The GTX 460 has 7 MP's. Did you do 224 curves in parallel or more? Are there memory latencies that are hidden by doing more?
The first 896 curves were done in four batches of 224 --- the default. The second ran all in parallel with a block of 32x32 and grid of 70x1x1. I seem to have lost the detailed timing information for the earlier curves As best I recall, running 896 took slightly less than running 224 four times but I could be quite wrong.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-11, 09:23   #20
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

2·5,323 Posts
Default Big oops.

I screwed up computing the time per curve
Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
Each stage one took 70 seconds on a GTX-460. The latest ECM takes 679 seconds per stage 1 on a single core of a 1090T clocked at 3264MHz, so the GPU version is close to 10 times faster in this situation.
1792 curves took 141 hours to run. I evaluated (1792 * 141 / 3600) to obtain the quoted figure of 70 seconds per curve.

The correct expression is (141 * 3600 / 1792), which evaluates to 283 seconds per curve.
Although this is four times worse than the initial figure, it is still 2.4 times faster than a singe core.

Sorry about that.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-11, 11:23   #21
Karl M Johnson
 
Karl M Johnson's Avatar
 
Mar 2010

3×137 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
It uses CUDA, thus requires an nVidia GPU supporting CC 1.3 or higher.
DP FP calculations are being performed ?
Karl M Johnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-11, 12:30   #22
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

33×131 Posts
Default

No, it looks to be integer only. Compute Capability 1.3 also has advanced synchronization primitives that the CC 1.3 branch uses. The code is here for anyone who's interested.
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Running CUDA on non-Nvidia GPUs Rodrigo GPU Computing 3 2016-05-17 05:43
Error in GMP-ECM 6.4.3 and latest svn ATH GMP-ECM 10 2012-07-29 17:15
latest SVN 1677 ATH GMP-ECM 7 2012-01-07 18:34
Has anyone seen my latest treatise? davieddy Lounge 0 2011-01-21 19:29
Latest version? [CZ]Pegas Software 3 2002-08-23 17:05

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:15.

Sat Apr 17 12:15:30 UTC 2021 up 9 days, 6:56, 0 users, load averages: 1.56, 1.96, 1.99

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.