GPU to 72 status... - Page 167

chalsall · 2013-01-29, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp19

I'll just grab from the default then, it'll be a few days before I grab more though.

(We cross-posted.) Cool. Thanks.

I'm going to keep my 560 in this range for the time being (when it's not SIFTing images), so between you, Chuck and myself we should be good.

bcp19 · 2013-01-31, 18:15

While I have not yet done any in the 31M range atm, I think these numbers should help the ^70 bit cause:

29M - 3,406 exp tested, 38 factors found (1.115%)
30M - 3,839 exp tested, 43 factors found (1.12%)
32M - 10,261 exp tested, 122 factors found (1.189%)

ckdo · 2013-01-31, 18:29

More complete data here.

flashjh · 2013-01-31, 18:49

SIFTing images?

James Heinrich · 2013-01-31, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashjh

SIFTing images?

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIFT

Scale-invariant feature transform, an algorithm in computer vision to detect and describe local features in images

I don't believe Chris has elaborated as to exactly the nature of his project. I think he's planning on sending an autonomous rover to Mars.

kracker · 2013-02-01, 21:51

What would we do without you Chris?

(Work Saved)

chalsall · 2013-02-01, 22:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by kracker

(Work Saved)

Whoops... Thanks for pointing that out.

I need to filter out my brief LMH test run....

bcp19 · 2013-02-01, 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

Whoops... Thanks for pointing that out.

I need to filter out my brief LMH test run....

Bad chalsall! We know how you programmers work!

Chuck · 2013-02-02, 01:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by kracker

What would we do without you Chris?

(Work Saved)

I noticed that some time ago ... I thought maybe it was a perk given to the creator of this system.

chalsall · 2013-02-02, 01:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

I noticed that some time ago ... I thought maybe it was a perk given to the creator of this system.

Nope.

I don't grant myself any perks not offered to anyone else, except occasionally running experiments intended for public use. Sometimes such experiments cause unexpected results, which is the purpose of the experiments in the first place.

LaurV · 2013-02-02, 07:28

As a connected discussion:
We talked about this in the past (here on the forum): LMH-TF saved work should not be mixed into those tables. because:
1. at the bitlevels we work in 332-334M area, it is still very easy to find factors (10 or more factors per day for a GTX580)
2. each factor found saves "a lot" of time, due to HUGE amount of work needed to be done to LL and DC such exponents.

I saved few millions of GHzDays only in the last 5 days, with only two cards.

Therefore we discussed in the past that if TF-LMH assignment will be offered by GPU72 as an option, then the "saved work" of such assignments should be accounted separate, or better ignored, because even counting it separate won't be accurate, there is big difference between exponents and bitlevels. The same like one should count how many GHzDays he saved by finding up-to-40 bits factors for exponents under 100M. You can find all of them in two-three days even with a pari script, and eliminate half of the exponents, how many billions of GHzDays would that be?

2013-02-02, 07:28	#1837
LaurV Romulan Interpreter Jun 2011 Thailand 2⁶×151 Posts	As a connected discussion: We talked about this in the past (here on the forum): LMH-TF saved work should not be mixed into those tables. because: 1. at the bitlevels we work in 332-334M area, it is still very easy to find factors (10 or more factors per day for a GTX580) 2. each factor found saves "a lot" of time, due to HUGE amount of work needed to be done to LL and DC such exponents. I saved few millions of GHzDays only in the last 5 days, with only two cards. Therefore we discussed in the past that if TF-LMH assignment will be offered by GPU72 as an option, then the "saved work" of such assignments should be accounted separate, or better ignored, because even counting it separate won't be accurate, there is big difference between exponents and bitlevels. The same like one should count how many GHzDays he saved by finding up-to-40 bits factors for exponents under 100M. You can find all of them in two-three days even with a pari script, and eliminate half of the exponents, how many billions of GHzDays would that be? Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2013-02-02 at 07:32

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Status	Primeinator	Operation Billion Digits	5	2011-12-06 02:35
62 bit status	1997rj7	Lone Mersenne Hunters	27	2008-09-29 13:52
OBD Status	Uncwilly	Operation Billion Digits	22	2005-10-25 14:05
1-2M LLR status	paulunderwood	3*2^n-1 Search	2	2005-03-13 17:03
Status of 26.0M - 26.5M	1997rj7	Lone Mersenne Hunters	25	2004-06-18 16:46

2013-01-31, 18:15	#1828
bcp19 Oct 2011 7×97 Posts	While I have not yet done any in the 31M range atm, I think these numbers should help the ^70 bit cause: 29M - 3,406 exp tested, 38 factors found (1.115%) 30M - 3,839 exp tested, 43 factors found (1.12%) 32M - 10,261 exp tested, 122 factors found (1.189%)

2013-01-31, 18:29	#1829
ckdo Dec 2007 Cleves, Germany 212₁₆ Posts	More complete data here.

2013-01-31, 18:49	#1830
flashjh "Jerry" Nov 2011 Vancouver, WA 1,123 Posts	SIFTing images?

2013-02-01, 21:51	#1832
kracker "Mr. Meeseeks" Jan 2012 California, USA 2³×271 Posts	What would we do without you Chris? (Work Saved)