267 kp/s on a PIV-Celeron 2000@2480 (124MHz FSB) with version 0.37 sse2 client
367 kp/s on a PIII-Celeron 1300@1560 (120MHz FSB) with version 0.37 cmov client
both dual range
and the PIII...
Type: Posts; User: priwo
267 kp/s on a PIV-Celeron 2000@2480 (124MHz FSB) with version 0.37 sse2 client
367 kp/s on a PIII-Celeron 1300@1560 (120MHz FSB) with version 0.37 cmov client
both dual range
and the PIII...
from 84 kp/s to 107kp/s on a P3 450 with NT
using 037cmov instead of 036cmov
on my P4 Celeron sb110 is 2.5% faster than sb10
Tualatin-Celeron 1500 doing prp-test:
n=3673052 k=21181
cEMs/sec=155.000 time left (for full test)=91hours 5minutes
great job Paul
1.28 203kp/s
1.33 254kp/s
on a P3-Celeron(Tualatin) with 1500 MHz, 128 MB SDRAM, alpha=2.5
1.32 didn`t work (system crashed after some minutes)
another sieve benchmark
P4 Celeron 1700@1989 86kp/sec
seems that the sieving speed doesn't depend on the memory speed
some sieve benchmarks (main sieve)
P3 Celeron 1300@1560 200kp/sec
P4 Celeron 2000@2440 106kp/sec
AMD Duron 1300 148kp/sec
for prp testing don't forget to have a look at the...
as you requested
200kp/sec on a P3-Celeron 1500
results from a Celeron 1300@1560
range:
17907000000000
17909503000000
same factors found by 1.25 and 1.27
1.27 is 13% faster than 1.25 (all my results are with the GUI version)
tested range
13007417126519 | 10223*2^12492989+1
13008326296387 | 21181*2^13984292+1
13009218296443 | 5359*2^9325182+1
same result with 1.25 and 1.27
1.27 is 22% faster than 1.25
1.27 is 12...
the new version of 1.26 has successfully passed the Trodoon-test
pmax=10662000000000
pmin=10660839000000
10660848993103 | 19249*2^5172926+1
10661083508609 | 55459*2^15208654+1
speed increase...
I think I would like nuris idea of a second deadline for finishing a complete test within 3 month - if this is possible.
thank you mike that i am in your sieve stats, i did not notice that i should be logged in while submitting factors
sorry for you moo
hi ceselb
my P3 Celeron does sieving (150000 p/sec) and secret Sob (20k)
I am using SoBSieve 1.22 and get the message
WARNING: 64 bit integers are badly aligned as qwords!
do I have a problem ? should I stop sieving ?
I got the same message some days ago. I turned back my memory timings to default and the message disappeared.
It seems to be a problem created by overclocking.
The bug is fixed and now it really works. Thank you louie.
priwo
Dann alles Gute zum Geburtstag !!
happy crunching
I think i would prefer Mystwalkers idea.
priwo
My cEMs/sec are now down by 10%
it works great !!!
my P3 + 30%
my P4 + 85%
I am online only once a day (modem-connection) and can do the actual blocks in about 30 hours on my P4. I like the current block size.
priwo
thank you smh !
You solved my problem. I deleted the cache in the registry -> i got a new n from the server.
I have the same problem with an "old" n. I deleted the whole directory but after reinstalling SoB the client got the "old" n from cache. Where is this cache ? How can i delete the cache ?
priwo