![]() |
![]() |
#89 |
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2×32×409 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#90 |
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
2,467 Posts |
![]()
Somebody on the Heise forum suggests to Dr. Nowak that he should use a printout of the prime for eyesight tests.
![]() Alex |
![]() |
![]() |
#91 | |
Feb 2004
France
2×457 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Also, 2 years ago, I've measured performances of the IBM JVM on PowerPC. PowerPC machines can run either 32bits or 64bits instructions: very useful for comparing ! And IBM delivers 2 versions of the JVM on AIX: a 32bits JVMs and a 64bits JVM, and 2 versions of the AIX operating system: a 32bits AIX and a 64bits AIX. Now, take an official benchmark (SPECjbb2000), run it with the 32bits JVM on the 32bits AIX, and then run it with the 64bits JVM on the 64bits AIX. Which one is the fastest ? The first one: ~10 % !! Because 64bits pointers consume more memory than 32bits pointers, which leads to caches being less efficient for the data. (And running the benchmark with the 32bits JVM on the 64bits AIX was nearly the same than with 32bits JVM on 32bits AIX.) With programs (like Java) that use pointers very often, using a 64bits machine (with the same architecture, same number of registers, ...) is slower. With HPC programs (like prime95 or GLucas), the computation (with floating-point variables) is preponderant. So I guess the performances would be the same. For floating point computation, I guess more precision leads to slower computation (number of cycles). My conclusion: don't believe the adds. The new 64bits processors are faster than the old 32bits processors for many reasons (more registers, different architecture, more efficient pipeline, new instructions, ...), but not because of the 64bits. I think a program built for 32bits computers can run faster on 64bits computer IF you reorganize it in depth (rewrite quite everything) in order to take profit of the 64bits for all the data the program is handling and computing. But it is not worth doing such a tremendous (and risky) task. Simply wait 18 months, and your program will run 2 times faster on the new processors ! Have a look to the new IBM processor: Cell. It's a monster. Tony |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#92 |
Dec 2003
Hopefully Near M48
2·3·293 Posts |
![]()
It looks like Perfectly Scientific has some work to do. They're still calling M41 a "new prime".
|
![]() |
![]() |
#93 | |
Dec 2003
Hopefully Near M48
2×3×293 Posts |
![]() Quote:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=25964951 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#94 |
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
32·307 Posts |
![]()
George,
In the press release public is misspelt as "pubic" in one place. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#95 | |
Dec 2003
Hopefully Near M48
33368 Posts |
![]() Quote:
The formula for the new prime number is 2 to the 25,964,951th power minus 1." The use of the word "formula" seems awkward; at least I've never heard it used like this before. Also, I'm pretty sure it should be ...951st power, not ...951th power. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#96 |
May 2004
Vancouver, Canada
22×52 Posts |
![]()
Results 1 - 10 of about 106 for 25,964,951. (0.25 seconds)
|
![]() |
![]() |
#97 | |
Dec 2003
Hopefully Near M48
110110111102 Posts |
![]() Quote:
![]() Last fiddled with by jinydu on 2005-02-28 at 14:32 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#98 |
Oct 2003
Croatia
23×3×19 Posts |
![]()
Congratulations Dr. Nowak!
|
![]() |
![]() |
#99 |
Mar 2003
Braunschweig, Germany
2·113 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Are Bitcoins Prime Related | a1call | Miscellaneous Math | 23 | 2020-09-17 13:17 |
Prime-Related History: Leibniz' "Universal Language Based on Primes" | ewmayer | Math | 10 | 2007-03-02 12:47 |
holy tethered cow! new Mersenne prime? (M43-related) | ixfd64 | News | 265 | 2006-01-04 09:47 |
Mersenne prime related shirts and other items | adpowers | Lounge | 40 | 2004-08-12 22:05 |
some prime-related trick questions | ixfd64 | Puzzles | 2 | 2003-09-23 12:53 |