20120211, 00:23  #12 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
2·3·5·313 Posts 
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.)

20120211, 00:27  #13  
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
10646_{10} Posts 
Quote:


20120211, 01:21  #14 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
7407_{10} Posts 

20120211, 02:51  #15 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
2×3×5×313 Posts 
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. 
20120211, 08:03  #16 
Jul 2003
So Cal
2·3·347 Posts 

20120211, 08:09  #17 
Jul 2003
So Cal
822_{16} Posts 

20120211, 08:59  #18 
Sep 2009
977_{10} Posts 
On my GT540M (admittedly a fairly lowend model, with 2 MPs), under Debian unstable x86_64, gpu_ecm with 64 curves in parallel seems to be somewhat slower than CPUbased stage 1 (tuned GMPECM binary) running on Core i72670QM @ 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 20120211 at 09:00 
20120211, 09:14  #19 
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
2×5,323 Posts 
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.

20120211, 09:23  #20  
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
2·5,323 Posts 
Big oops.
I screwed up computing the time per curve
Quote:
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. 

20120211, 11:23  #21 
Mar 2010
3×137 Posts 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Running CUDA on nonNvidia GPUs  Rodrigo  GPU Computing  3  20160517 05:43 
Error in GMPECM 6.4.3 and latest svn  ATH  GMPECM  10  20120729 17:15 
latest SVN 1677  ATH  GMPECM  7  20120107 18:34 
Has anyone seen my latest treatise?  davieddy  Lounge  0  20110121 19:29 
Latest version?  [CZ]Pegas  Software  3  20020823 17:05 