mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Other Stuff > Archived Projects > 3*2^n-1 Search

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 2005-01-02, 16:39   #1
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

2·29·71 Posts
Default New LLR

I have checked out the new LLR35 (12/27/04). I ran the dynamic linux version on a P4 and on an Athlon, both passing about 700 double-checks against "the original LLR" each at about n=260000 -- no errors
paulunderwood is offline  
Old 2005-01-02, 19:46   #2
Jean Penné
 
Jean Penné's Avatar
 
May 2004
FRANCE

22×3×72 Posts
Default LLR 3.5

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulunderwood
I have checked out the new LLR35 (12/27/04). I ran the dynamic linux version on a P4 and on an Athlon, both passing about 700 double-checks against "the original LLR" each at about n=260000 -- no errors
Thank you, Paul, for this QA work ! I think the "Beta" would be soon removed.
Jean
Jean Penné is offline  
Old 2005-01-03, 13:01   #3
Thomas11
 
Thomas11's Avatar
 
Feb 2003

36008 Posts
Default

I've tested the new LLR35 on a 2GHz Opteron.
To get an idea about how the non-SSE2 functions compare in speed to the SSE2 functions, I played a bit with the "CpuSupportsSSE2" switch.

Here are the timings (while testing 3*2^1572660-1):
SSE2 enabled: 4.186 ms/iteration
SSE2 disabled: 4.275 ms/iteration

You see that the time/iteration using the non-SSE2 library is very close to that of the SSE2 library, only about 2% more. This is a great break-through for the Athlon users and the Athlons do not need to fear comparison with the P4s any longer!

Thank you very much, George and Jean!

-- Thomas
Thomas11 is offline  
Old 2005-01-04, 12:58   #4
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

2×29×71 Posts
Default

During my tests I saw:

0.4 milli-seconds per iteration on the P4 @ 2.47 GHz

0.7 milli-seconds per iteration on the XP2200 @ 1.8 GHz

making Athlons competative at LLR.

Once we have finshed sieving at the end of 2005, I will be putting my Athlons on LLR.

Athlon users:

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2005-01-05 at 19:29 Reason: seconds should have read milli-seconds
paulunderwood is offline  
 

Thread Tools


All times are UTC. The time now is 13:58.


Wed May 18 13:58:56 UTC 2022 up 34 days, 12 hrs, 0 users, load averages: 1.86, 1.67, 1.57

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