On Tuesday 20 August 2002 22:39, you wrote: > Michael Vang highlights the fact that there are two different things that > we can measure: 1) work accomplished, e.g. Mnumbers evaluated, iterations > run, etc. 2) work effort expended, which requires evaluation of > processor/system power. > > The P4 versions (more efficient) accomplish more with less effort. This can > make evaluation of effort expended complex, even when work accomplished is > trivial to calculate.
Also, PIII and Athlon are more efficient than PII because of the impact of the prefetch instruction... > > The only thing I have concluded so far is that any re-indexing or > re-calculation should be concerned strictly with LL computation. No > consideration should be given to factoring or P-1 effort in determining > machine efficiency. After all, any factors found are a nice side effect. > The _real_ objective is to find numbers _without_ factors. Umm. I think the point here is that factoring & LL testing are _different_. You can't add apples & oranges directly; you really need seperate tables. > > The rankings should ideally be based on work effort expended, in my > opinion. I have no idea how this can be done "fairly". If accomplishments > are to be the basis of rankings, the individuals who have found MPrimes > should always be at the top of the list for LL testing. This is all old stuff & fairly uncontroversial. To recap: at present we have two sets of tables: the PrimeNet tables are "effort expended" and seperated into LL testing & trial factoring components (P-1 is ignored) George's tables count LL testing effort only; results subsequently found to be incorrect are discredited; so are results for exponents when a factor is subsequently found. Regards Brian Beesley _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
