Mersenne: Status
http://www.mersenne.org/status.htm All exponents below 10,040,400 have been tested at least once. So how come I've just been given this assignment: Test=9620617,64,1 Even if it had two non-matching LLs then it should still be reassigned as a doublecheck, AAUI. Since it's P-1 complete, I'll be releasing it back to the server within the next few days, unless I hear that I shouldn't. Regards Daran _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Status
At 07:30 AM 8/19/2002 +0100, Daran wrote: So how come I've just been given this assignment: Test=9620617,64,1 The first test of this number had 5 roundoff 0.40 errors. Since the result is highly suspect, it was re-released as a first time test. Consider yourself lucky to get such a small exponent - faster runtime and better chance of yielding a Mersenne prime than the first time tests in the 16 millions. _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Benchmarks / Reference Machine / Calculations
On Sunday 18 August 2002 17:59, Jeff Woods wrote: 21000 of the 31000 participating machines are P-III or better. Less than 2,000 true Pentium-class machines remain in the mix. George et. al.: Could it be time to change the baseline reference machine away from the Pentium-90, and wipe the P-90 off of all pages, from rankings to status to years of computing time left to complete the task? A couple years back, George changed the Status page reference to be a P-II/400, equivalent to 5.5 P90's. Now even that PII/400 is far less than the 'average participating machine, which given the above numbers, I'd guess is now about one gigahertz, perhaps slightly better. I believe that a one-time re-indexing of ranks, stats, and time left to compute that re-indexes on either a P-III/1000 or an Athlon-1000, would make the CPU years left numbers on the status page a bit more realistic, as well as the number of CPU years I complete each day. If we're going to re-index at all then we should be jumping to the top of the range since this will be relevant for longer. How's about referencing to Pentium 4 2.67B which is about the top of the range at the moment (if it's even available yet). I think we should also publish conversion factors for common processors including obsolete ones at least as far back as 386. There _is_ historical interest in this, even if working examples of these processors are now only to be found in space hardware. (Incidentally the first successful microprocessor-controlled space probes - the Voyagers, controlled by Intel 8008 CPUs - are just coming up to the 25th anniversary of their launch!) Side note: Also of interest in both the benchmarks table and on the individual / top producers tables, would be a RECENT CPU hours/day comparison, as well as a machine reference back to the baseline machine, whatever it may be. i.e. I've been with this thing from the beginning, in 1996. Obviously, my average machine has gotten better and better. My top listing says I'm doing about 1090 CPU hours a day but that's averaged over ALL of my submissions, dating back to when I was using 486's in 1996! I did some arithmetic to try to figure out what I'm cranking out NOW (anyone want to check my logic here)? i.e. how many CPU-hours a day is, say, an Athlon 1600+ worth? According to the benchmarks page, the P-II/400 does a 15-17MM exponent iteration in 0.536 seconds.And we know that this machine is 5.5 P-90's. Thus, a P-90 would be expected to take 5.5 x 0.536, or 2.948 seconds. My Athlon 1600+ takes .130 seconds per iteration. 2.948 / 0.130 = 22.677 times as fast at the P-90, so 22.677 x 24 hours means that this machine ought to be doing ABOUT 544.24 P-90 CPU hours per day. If I add up what all my machines are doing NOW, I get 3503 P-90 CPU Hours a day, not the 1090 shown on my account and report. -- What I'd like to see is: 1) On the individual account report, the above calculation (i.e. the 544.24) shown next to the exponent/machine. This should not be ESTIMATED, but reverse engineered from actual reported iterations per second for the exponent, compared to 2.948 seconds for the P90 (or whatever a new baseline might be). 2) A SUM of all of the above, to let one know how much they TRULY are cranking out, as opposed to that slow creeping average that, after so many years means nothing. 3) A rolling average for the last 6 months, for the Top XXX pages, so that I can compare RECENT work to other recent work. i.e. I see that I am surrounded by many others in the 1100 CPU Hours/day rangebut if my historical data is skewed so much by those old slow machines from six years ago, how much are others skewed? Who do I have a chance to pass? Who's gaining on me? I can't tell! A rolling average, or perhaps the calculations from #2 above in a column instead of a rolling average, would make comparisons in the Top XXX listings easier, and much more meaningful. This suggestion makes a lot of sense. The hours per day figure is pretty meaningless, for the reasons stated. Regards Brian Beesley _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Benchmark Timings: XP1800+
At 08:58 PM 8/18/02 +, you wrote: One of these days I'll drop some DDR in there (sad to say, I don't have any spare right now), and see if it truly does drop down to 0.091 or thereabouts. Note that it is not often possible to use SDRAM or DDRAM in the same board. SDRAM DIMMs are 168 pin, DDRAM DIMMs are 184 pin, so the modules are not physically interchangeable. Unless you have two sets of RAM slots, you aren't going to be able to convert without swapping the mobo. Fortunately, at least I chose the MB well. I do indeed have both SDRAM and DDRAM slots (two of each), and I was aware of the inability to run both concurrently. Thanks! _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Benchmark Timings: XP1800+
There are some SIS based motherboards like the hugely popular ECS K7S5A(among DC farmers) That have both DDR and SDR ram slots. I personally have more than 15 of them running a whole spread of SDR durons, DDR Thoroughbreds(latest AXP processors)and everything in between. Note that it is not often possible to use SDRAM or DDRAM in the same board. SDRAM DIMMs are 168 pin, DDRAM DIMMs are 184 pin, so the modules are not physically interchangeable. Unless you have two sets of RAM slots, you aren't going to be able to convert without swapping the mobo. Even then I doubt you will be able to use both DDR and SDR at the same time, without crippling the DDR performance to SDR levels. It is not possible to use DDR and SDR simultaniously. Neither VIA or SIS solution allows for it, and since they would share the same bus, it would not be worth it in the long run. _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Benchmarks / Reference Machine / Calculations
If we're going to re-index at all then we should be jumping to the top of the range since this will be relevant for longer. How's about referencing to Pentium 4 2.67B which is about the top of the range at the moment (if it's even available yet). Why even bother with that? Just use gigaflops or something that is not hardware dependent at all... It's like trying to measure the distance you have traveled (gigaflops) using a Yugo (P90) versus a Corvette (P4)... They both travel the same distance, just the Yugo is slower... The real important data is how far you have traveled, right? Or use bogomips... :) Mike (Xyzzy) _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Benchmark Timings: XP1800+
Last I looked, Intel doesn't have a 533/1066Mhz RDRAM chipset certified. They only spec their i850e chipset for 400/800Mhz RDRAM operation, although some motherboard makers are allowing the faster memory clock. The 850E supports 1066 RDRAM unofficially... The 845G supports DDR333 unofficially... In the case of the 850E, if you slap in PC1066 memory that is programmed properly (SPD) it will work at that speed... http://www.hardforums.com/showthread.php?s=618cc47b890c2bd0d9fd3a8f4c7a4 113threadid=440561pagenumber=2 Look at the 3rd message down... Note that I specified an Intel-branded motherboard... The link might get chopped in two, so you may have to cut and paste it... Further investigation on my part has verified this link... Mike (Xyzzy) _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Status
- Original Message - From: George Woltman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Daran [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 3:28 PM Subject: Re: Mersenne: Status The first test of this number had 5 roundoff 0.40 errors. Since the result is highly suspect, it was re-released as a first time test. Thanks for the explanation. Regards Daran _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
