PFGW 4.0.4 (with gwnum v30.10) Released

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by rogue

It had to do with the M$ compiler always defining a long...

To be clear this was my bug, not M$.

[rogue]

Originally Posted by Prime95

To be clear this was my bug, not M$.

You know me. I like to blame M$ for these types of things. Seriously though, I don't know what the standard is. The definition was clear when CPUs were 32-bit, but I don't see a standard definition of a long for 64-bit architectures. I would expect an ISO standard, but haven't been able to find it yet.

[rogue]

I have updated the link for PFGW here I am releasing 3.4.1 for Windows only since only Windows was affected by the issue. Although the 32-bit version is included in the zipfile, only the 64-bit bit version has any changes.

[mdettweiler]

Mark, I seem to be getting a slowdown with 32-bit 3.4.0 as opposed to 3.3.6. I noticed this on some base 5 pairs that I was running through PRPnet. I'm using this PRPnet server as filler work between TPS sieve ranges; thus, I worked on it a little a few days ago, then took 3 days or so off to do a sieve range, and am now back on the PRPnet server again. I upgraded PFGW to 3.4.0 in the interim. Here is my test_results.log showing the results before and after the changeover:

[2010-09-22 18:42:46 EDT] Candidate: 289184*5^477336-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 08B0E31C3A9EFF00  Time: 3671 seconds
[2010-09-22 19:43:34 EDT] Candidate: 127174*5^477351-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: DA00969979D57138  Time: 3644 seconds
[2010-09-22 20:49:24 EDT] Candidate: 207394*5^477357-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 2DB93A71BB0A6D89  Time: 3948 seconds
[2010-09-22 21:57:49 EDT] Candidate: 53542*5^477367-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: C219C5F34A2B8D2B  Time: 4099 seconds
[2010-09-22 22:59:56 EDT] Candidate: 102818*5^477378-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: D78C24D964BE86CA  Time: 3720 seconds
[2010-09-23 00:00:25 EDT] Candidate: 64598*5^477390-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 494AE4D759658CE7  Time: 3624 seconds
[2010-09-26 07:39:13 EDT] Candidate: 243944*5^478048-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: A48AB870927245F0  Time: 4580 seconds
[2010-09-26 08:55:23 EDT] Candidate: 194368*5^478057-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 3B71DD5DA8AB0BF7  Time: 4567 seconds
[2010-09-26 10:12:28 EDT] Candidate: 259072*5^478063-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 703423F79481265C  Time: 4619 seconds
[2010-09-26 11:29:47 EDT] Candidate: 146756*5^478072-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 019D098696437238  Time: 4636 seconds
[2010-09-26 12:18:20 EDT] Candidate: 22478*5^478082-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 5A2455E84FCE318B  Time: 2909 seconds
[2010-09-26 13:35:07 EDT] Candidate: 162434*5^478092-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: BF3D8B20B48257FE  Time: 4601 seconds
[2010-09-26 14:53:18 EDT] Candidate: 268514*5^478100-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 5B30C65AF64582E8  Time: 4688 seconds
[2010-09-26 16:11:34 EDT] Candidate: 119878*5^478109-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 49B7CA1372F2BF82  Time: 4692 seconds
[2010-09-26 17:31:20 EDT] Candidate: 151026*5^478112-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 539CEBED84B56084  Time: 4779 seconds
[2010-09-26 18:49:28 EDT] Candidate: 170386*5^478123-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 51CECE7D80876FA2  Time: 4681 seconds
[2010-09-26 20:06:36 EDT] Candidate: 102818*5^478134-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 039C4C573ADA683D  Time: 4620 seconds
[2010-09-26 21:25:08 EDT] Candidate: 262172*5^478138-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 83B5AA2A245C99FD  Time: 4705 seconds
[2010-09-26 22:41:43 EDT] Candidate: 105782*5^478154-1  Program: pfgw.exe  Residue: 2AEE407A72D331B7  Time: 4583 seconds

PFGW 3.3.6 got times around 3600-4000 seconds, and 3.4.0 gets around 4600 seconds.

It's possible I just hit an FFT change and this is a fluke...I'll run some quick tests to see if this is the case.

[mdettweiler]

It doesn't look there were any FFT changes. Here's what each version used for pairs before and after the changeover in my above list:

289184*5^477336-1:
3.3.6: zero-padded FFT length 128K
3.4.0: Core2 type-3 FFT length 128K
 
105782*5^478154-1:
3.3.6: zero-padded FFT length 128K
3.4.0: Core2 type-3 FFT length 128K

So this appears to be some kind of general slowdown with 3.4.0. This is rather surprising, since I'm running this on a Core 2 Duo (one of the architectures that would be expected to have a speedup).

I'm using the 32-bit Windows 3.4.0. If I'm understanding things correctly, 3.4.1 only made changes to the 64-bit version, so whatever's happening here probably affects 3.4.1 as well.

[rogue]

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

It doesn't look there were any FFT changes. Here's what each version used for pairs before and after the changeover in my above list:

289184*5^477336-1:
3.3.6: zero-padded FFT length 128K
3.4.0: Core2 type-3 FFT length 128K
 
105782*5^478154-1:
3.3.6: zero-padded FFT length 128K
3.4.0: Core2 type-3 FFT length 128K

So this appears to be some kind of general slowdown with 3.4.0. This is rather surprising, since I'm running this on a Core 2 Duo (one of the architectures that would be expected to have a speedup).

I'm using the 32-bit Windows 3.4.0. If I'm understanding things correctly, 3.4.1 only made changes to the 64-bit version, so whatever's happening here probably affects 3.4.1 as well.

This is a question for George as PFGW does not select the FFT used by gwnum for the PRP Test.

You are correct on 3.4.1.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

105782*5^478154-1:
3.3.6: zero-padded FFT length 128K
3.4.0: Core2 type-3 FFT length 128K

.

Using 32-bit Prime95 on my Core 2 Mac running Windows in VMware I get 2.75 ms for the old gwnum code and 2.25 ms/iter for the new gwnum code.

[rogue]

I tested the second number with 3.3.6 and 3.4.0 (both 32 bit). 4713 and 4165 seconds respectively. You should probably test one of those numbers with both versions. There are other factors in gwnum that can affect timing.

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by rogue

I tested the second number with 3.3.6 and 3.4.0 (both 32 bit). 4713 and 4165 seconds respectively. You should probably test one of those numbers with both versions. There are other factors in gwnum that can affect timing.

Okay, here's what I got running the first number with both versions:

$ ./pfgw336.exe -q289184*5^477336-1
PFGW Version 3.3.6.20100908.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (3820.2773s+0.1489s)
 
$ ./pfgw.exe -q289184*5^477336-1
PFGW Version 3.4.0.32BIT.20100925.Win_Dev [GWNUM 26.2]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (4416.4668s+0.0490s)

Again, 3.4.0 is significantly slower. Very strange.

[rogue]

PFGW Version 3.3.6.20100908.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (3526.7372s+0.0633s)

PFGW Version 3.4.1.32BIT.20100927.Win_Dev [GWNUM 26.2]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (3428.3614s+0.3369s)

PFGW Version 3.4.1.64BIT.20100927.Win_Dev [GWNUM 26.2]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (2683.5896s+0.0174s)

This is on a "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8700 @ 2.53GHz" according to the pfgw.ini file. What is the CpuBrand entry in your pfgw.ini file? This was on 64-bit Window 7.

My tests last night were on a MacIntel T7700 Core 2 Duo at 2.40 GHz. The MacIntel is about 4 years old and has slower memory.

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by rogue

PFGW Version 3.3.6.20100908.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (3526.7372s+0.0633s)

PFGW Version 3.4.1.32BIT.20100927.Win_Dev [GWNUM 26.2]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (3428.3614s+0.3369s)

PFGW Version 3.4.1.64BIT.20100927.Win_Dev [GWNUM 26.2]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (2683.5896s+0.0174s)

This is on a "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8700 @ 2.53GHz" according to the pfgw.ini file. What is the CpuBrand entry in your pfgw.ini file? This was on 64-bit Window 7.

My tests last night were on a MacIntel T7700 Core 2 Duo at 2.40 GHz. The MacIntel is about 4 years old and has slower memory.

The CPU is a Core 2 Duo E4500 (at stock speed of 2.2Ghz) and is identified by PFGW as:

"Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.20GHz"

The computer is running Windows XP Pro 32-bit.