![]() |
|
|
#1937 |
|
"Jerry"
Nov 2011
Vancouver, WA
1,123 Posts |
All, been out of the loop for a while. We just about settled in FL. I would like to get Carl's, et al, updates incorporated and working. Sourceforge has 2.04b, but I don't see 2.05. Can anyone catch me up on current developments, etc.?
Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
#1938 |
|
Jul 2009
Tokyo
2·5·61 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1939 |
|
Jul 2009
Tokyo
2×5×61 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1940 | |
|
Jul 2009
Tokyo
2·5·61 Posts |
New Version.
HD7750: Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1941 | |
|
Jul 2009
Tokyo
2·5·61 Posts |
OpenCLucas ?
HD7750: Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1942 |
|
"Mr. Meeseeks"
Jan 2012
California, USA
216810 Posts |
Or CLLucas
![]() I might install linux just for tinkering with it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1943 |
|
Mar 2010
3·137 Posts |
OCLucas
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1944 |
|
Aug 2005
11810 Posts |
I am having trouble with exponent 58715819. I have run it several times using p95v279win64 on different processors and got the following results.
M58715819 is not prime. Res64: A25E1DD191A340D0. We4: 36299458,27352921,00000000, AID: C19BB90856CE3B67E66D58C6682991CB M58715819 is not prime. Res64: A25E1DD191A340D0. We4: 3BB22B6F,53977644,01000200, AID: C19BB90856CE3B67E66D58C6682991CB M58715819 is not prime. Res64: A25E1DD191A340D0. We4: 349B894F,51331660,00000000, AID: C19BB90856CE3B67E66D58C6682991CB One gave errors which is why the multiple runs but, they all gave the same Res64. I ran CUDALucas 2.01 on a 590 (each half) and a 560Ti and got the following results. M( 58715819 )C, 0x0ac290f866461586, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.01 M( 58715819 )C, 0x0ac290f866461586, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.01 M( 58715819 )C, 0x0ac290f866461586, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.01 I thought I had found the solution by moving to CUDALucas 2.03 on the 590 and got a Res64 that did not match anything previously. M( 58715819 )C, 0x0be4ee92a264fc3b, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 What is going on? Here are the last few screen prints of the final run in case it helps. Very low err. Iteration 58600000 M( 58715819 )C, 0xabbbf85c1135a70a, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0166 (12:55 real, 7.7443 ms/iter, ETA 12:54) Iteration 58700000 M( 58715819 )C, 0x5b8436b841f162ef, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 err = 0.0166 (13:03 real, 7.8299 ms/iter, ETA 0:00) M( 58715819 )C, 0x0be4ee92a264fc3b, n = 3670016, CUDALucas v2.03 Best regards, David P.S. My Res64's have always matched before and after on other similar exponents between p95 and CUDALucas. Last fiddled with by dbaugh on 2013-06-15 at 04:51 Reason: more infor |
|
|
|
|
|
#1945 |
|
Mar 2010
3·137 Posts |
Due to this thread, can someone please compile a 64 bit CUDA 5.5 binary for sm_35 arch?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1946 | |
|
Sep 2010
So Cal
628 Posts |
Quote:
![]() Presently using Win8 x64 compiled on MSVS 12 update 3, using CuLu 2.03 source. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1947 |
|
Mar 2010
41110 Posts |
2.55 ms/iter vs 2.94 ms/iter(M47).
I'm using the latest and greatest WHQL of 320.49. It must be the toolkit, not the drivers. Neat, thanks! Notice the difference, btw: Code:
26.09.2012 00:46 26,093,928 cufft64_50_35.dll 11.07.2013 14:06 74,730,784 cufft64_55.dll Last fiddled with by Karl M Johnson on 2013-08-09 at 07:44 |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Don't DC/LL them with CudaLucas | LaurV | Data | 131 | 2017-05-02 18:41 |
| CUDALucas / cuFFT Performance on CUDA 7 / 7.5 / 8 | Brain | GPU Computing | 13 | 2016-02-19 15:53 |
| CUDALucas: which binary to use? | Karl M Johnson | GPU Computing | 15 | 2015-10-13 04:44 |
| settings for cudaLucas | fairsky | GPU Computing | 11 | 2013-11-03 02:08 |
| Trying to run CUDALucas on Windows 8 CP | Rodrigo | GPU Computing | 12 | 2012-03-07 23:20 |