Prime95 version 29.6/29.7/29.8

[Cruelty]

Was there any change in handling Affinity between 29.4 and 29.6?

[Worker #1]
Affinity=4,6

[Worker #2]
Affinity=0,2

Those settings does not seem to work in 29.6 as they were in 29.4, and CPU cores are chosen randomly and change during calculation?

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by Cruelty

"Small FFTs" 12h stress test passed - I'd suggest lowering Max FFT size from 586K to maybe 128K,

Is this for 20 torture threads on 13.75MB L3 cache?

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by Cruelty

Was there any change in handling Affinity between 29.4 and 29.6?

Not to my knowledge.

[Worker #1]
Affinity=4,6

[Worker #2]
Affinity=0,2

Those settings does not seem to work in 29.6 as they were in 29.4, and CPU cores are chosen randomly and change during calculation?

29.6 is linked with a newer version of hwloc. Is it reporting an accurate description of your architecture in results.bench.txt?

[Cruelty]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Is this for 20 torture threads on 13.75MB L3 cache?

Yes

29.6 is linked with a newer version of hwloc. Is it reporting an accurate description of your architecture in results.bench.txt?

I don't see such file in prime95 directory CPU information in prime95 seems accurate though.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by Cruelty

Yes
I don't see such file in prime95 directory CPU information in prime95 seems accurate though.

You get results.bench.txt whenever you do any benchmark. Just start one and abort it.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by Cruelty

Is this for 20 torture threads on 13.75MB L3 cache?

Something is off. A small torture test trying to run in L3 cache should assume 13.75MB / 20 threads = 704KB / test. Each FFT word is an 8-byte double. Thus max FFT size should be under 88K.

[Cruelty]

Originally Posted by Prime95

You get results.bench.txt whenever you do any benchmark. Just start one and abort it.

Here you go.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by Cruelty

Was there any change in handling Affinity between 29.4 and 29.6?

[Worker #1]
Affinity=4,6

[Worker #2]
Affinity=0,2

Those settings does not seem to work in 29.6 as they were in 29.4, and CPU cores are chosen randomly and change during calculation?

So 29.6 should bind worker #1 to PU#4 and PU#6 (which are logical CPUs on two different cores) as reported in results.bench.txt. Are you getting messages on screen saying what logical CPU each worker is being bound to?

[Cruelty]

Originally Posted by Prime95

So 29.6 should bind worker #1 to PU#4 and PU#6 (which are logical CPUs on two different cores) as reported in results.bench.txt. Are you getting messages on screen saying what logical CPU each worker is being bound to?

Yes, but it's not what actually happens when I watch the graphs in task manager.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by Cruelty

Yes, but it's not what actually happens when I watch the graphs in task manager.

Hmmm. I looked at the code and see no problems (though that is far from conclusive!).

Are there any Windows system tools that tell you if a process' threads are bound to specific logical CPUs?

I'll try replicating on my non-hyperthreaded quad-core.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by harlee

Madpoo,

It appears that JSON isn't displaying PRP-C results the same way as non-JSON - known factors are not being shown. Please see M5342101 and M7039433 and PrimeNet Most Recent Results page (sort by Type). Even the entry on my Account Results Details page is different:

Fixed. The latest builds have the known-factors in an array in the JSON data... not sure how the previous P95 builds would have included the known-factors if there were more than one, maybe just as a comma-delimited single value.