![]() |
|
|
#364 |
|
Banned
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia
5·7·139 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#365 |
|
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
22·863 Posts |
I updated my "automatic" GMP-ECM compiling zip-file to include GMP 6.0.0a and MPIR 2.7.0 alpha 12, and to include the newer processors in the list to choose from:
gmpecmcompile.zip The zip-files should be extracted to the root of the c-drive: C:\. I will unpack 3 folders: msys, mingw64 and python27 and 1 bat file: c:\msys.bat. It takes about 550 Mb of space. To start it use c:\msys.bat and it will start up msys and guide from there (note it will copy python27.dll to the windows\system32 folder, so Python 2.7 can run). Just type "mpir-compile.bat" or "gmp-compile" to compile MPIR/GMP and choose the processor in the menu. Then type "gmpecm-compile.bat" to compile GMP-ECM and choose if you want GMPECM 6.4.4 or the latest svn. My timing also shows GMP 6.0.0a is faster for higher B1/B2 and higher digits: Code:
GMP-ECM 7.0-dev SVN 2540: MPIR 2.7.0 alpha 12 vs GMP 6.0.0a B1=1000000 digits=100 MPIR Step 1 took 1264ms Step 2 took 1123ms GMP Step 1 took 1280ms Step 2 took 998ms B1=1000000 digits=200 MPIR Step 1 took 3416ms Step 2 took 2106ms GMP Step 1 took 3120ms Step 2 took 1825ms B1=1000000 digits=500 MPIR Step 1 took 22745ms Step 2 took 9687ms GMP Step 1 took 25740ms Step 2 took 8893ms B1=1000000 digits=1000 MPIR Step 1 took 90824ms Step 2 took 24679ms GMP Step 1 took 82681ms Step 2 took 23119ms B1=3000000 digits=100 MPIR Step 1 took 5741ms Step 2 took 4836ms GMP Step 1 took 5648ms Step 2 took 4383ms B1=3000000 digits=200 MPIR Step 1 took 15164ms Step 2 took 8892ms GMP Step 1 took 13744ms Step 2 took 7972ms B1=3000000 digits=500 MPIR Step 1 took 86846ms Step 2 took 27877ms GMP Step 1 took 76706ms Step 2 took 26052ms B1=3000000 digits=1000 MPIR Step 1 took 271660ms Step 2 took 60466ms GMP Step 1 took 248198ms Step 2 took 56129ms B1=11000000 digits=100 MPIR Step 1 took 20452ms Step 2 took 15101ms GMP Step 1 took 20717ms Step 2 took 14102ms B1=11000000 digits=200 MPIR Step 1 took 55474ms Step 2 took 27752ms GMP Step 1 took 50388ms Step 2 took 25288ms B1=11000000 digits=500 MPIR Step 1 took 317665ms Step 2 took 90949ms GMP Step 1 took 281160ms Step 2 took 85130ms B1=11000000 digits=1000 MPIR Step 1 took 996363ms Step 2 took 234360ms GMP Step 1 took 912917ms Step 2 took 213254ms |
|
|
|
|
|
#366 |
|
"Mr. Meeseeks"
Jan 2012
California, USA
37×59 Posts |
Hmm... interesting.
Also, how much does turning ecm affect performance?(ecm-params.h) |
|
|
|
|
|
#367 |
|
"Mr. Meeseeks"
Jan 2012
California, USA
1000100001112 Posts |
Is this normal...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#368 |
|
Mar 2010
1100110112 Posts |
ASM reduction should speed things up as far as I remember.
Well, not anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
#369 |
|
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Liverpool (GMT/BST)
10111111111012 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#370 |
|
Dec 2012
32×31 Posts |
Thank you again, ATH. What do I have to change in order to get it to compile without asm-redc enabled? I tried changing the three gmpecm-compile.bat files, but it didn't succeed. I would like to see if having it disabled is any faster when working on numbers > 4000.
Also, is it weird that I get worse performance with both GMP 6.0.0a and MPIR 2.7.0 alpha 12 over MPIR 2.5.1? Last fiddled with by Jayder on 2014-11-04 at 06:14 |
|
|
|
|
|
#371 | |
|
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
22·863 Posts |
Quote:
If you do not want to replace all, then you need to find the section for your cpu. If you press A in the cpu menu it is the ":OPT1" section, B is ":OPT2" and so on down to N for ":OPT14". Then in the correct section there are 2 configure lines, the first is just an echo line, so it is the second one at the bottom of the section. You need to remove "--enable-asm-redc" or change it to "--disable-asm-redc". Let me know if it is better without asm-redc, then I might add an option for that as well. Last fiddled with by ATH on 2014-11-04 at 09:26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#372 |
|
Dec 2012
32·31 Posts |
Thank you. I got it to work after correcting one small error I'd made before. With it disabled, using MPIR 2.5.1, on a C4949 you shave less than 1% off of the time taken per curve. We're talking 10-25 seconds saved on a curve that takes 3200 seconds. It does add up, of course. I haven't tested any smaller numbers, though, so I'm not sure at what size it begins to benefit you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#373 | |
|
"Dave"
Sep 2005
UK
23·347 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#374 |
|
"Antonio Key"
Sep 2011
UK
32·59 Posts |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Project Links | masser | Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 | 25 | 2011-11-26 09:21 |
| Links to Precompiled Msieve versions | wblipp | Msieve | 0 | 2011-07-17 20:59 |
| Links | davieddy | Information & Answers | 9 | 2010-10-08 14:27 |
| Links question | ET_ | PrimeNet | 0 | 2008-01-26 09:35 |
| Links. | Xyzzy | Forum Feedback | 2 | 2007-03-18 02:17 |