 mersenneforum.org New GMP!!
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  2006-03-28, 05:06 #23 Andi47   Oct 2004 Austria 2·17·73 Posts I compiled GMP 4.2 + ecm6.1-beta2 (using ./configure -–with-gmp=/usr/local --enable-asm-redc) yesterday in the evening and was running the benchmark until a few moments ago. Code: GMP-ECM 6.1-beta2 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=926057434 Step 1 took 124969ms Step 2 took 46859ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=300961870 Step 1 took 125000ms Step 2 took 46860ms Run 3 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1576487558 Step 1 took 125281ms Step 2 took 46812ms Run 4 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3760506750 Step 1 took 125063ms Step 2 took 47203ms Run 5 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2368405546 Step 1 took 124859ms Step 2 took 47516ms that's *slow* - even slower than without the --enable-asm-redc option My steps when compiling were: tar -xvzf gmp-4.2.tar.gz cd gmp-4.2/ ./configure make install make check cd ~ tar -xvzf ecm-6.1-beta2.tar.gz cd ecm-6.1-beta2 ./configure -–with-gmp=/usr/local --enable-asm-redc make Did I do something wrong - or are there still more compile options to use for a Pentium 4?  2006-03-28, 10:22 #24 Mystwalker   Jul 2004 Potsdam, Germany 14778 Posts I still have to benchmark the asm-redc option on my P4, but I also got the impression that it is slower. I should be able to post results this evening.  2006-03-28, 11:34 #25 BotXXX   Aug 2003 Europe 19410 Posts I also did some tests on a idle Pentium 4 2.93 GHz cpu on the c205 of M1701 GMP-ECM 6.0.1 with GMP 4.2 Code: BotXXX P4 - GMP-ECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=370079320 Step 1 took 95210ms Step 2 took 34290ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=676809121 Step 1 took 94995ms Step 2 took 34479ms Run 3 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3151733463 Step 1 took 95011ms Step 2 took 34506ms Run 4 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1746079971 Step 1 took 95088ms Step 2 took 34552ms Run 5 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2760815317 Step 1 took 95043ms Step 2 took 34534ms GMP-ECM 6.1 beta 2 with GMP 4.2 Code: BotXXX P4 - GMP-ECM 6.1-beta2 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1386523129 Step 1 took 94531ms Step 2 took 45203ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=872759764 Step 1 took 95313ms Step 2 took 45593ms Run 3 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1114418950 Step 1 took 95547ms Step 2 took 45641ms Run 4 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=336469270 Step 1 took 95219ms Step 2 took 46484ms Run 5 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3872377383 Step 1 took 95266ms Step 2 took 46328ms GMP-ECM 6.1 beta 2 with GMP 4.2 and --enable-asm-redc Code: BotXXX P4 - GMP-ECM plus 6.1-beta2 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=141995905 Step 1 took 144844ms Step 2 took 47828ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2723037926 Step 1 took 144937ms Step 2 took 47766ms GMP-ECM 6.0.1 with GMP 4.2 and higher B2 Code: BotXXX P4 - GMP-ECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1770901312 Step 1 took 95594ms Step 2 took 43465ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2895472145 Step 1 took 95109ms Step 2 took 43899ms Run 3 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3492736638 Step 1 took 94750ms Step 2 took 43696ms All three were compiled in MinGW with GCC 3.4.5 (mingw special) and run with the following command line ecm -c 5 3000000 < input.txt except the last one (6.0.1 with higher B2) which used ecm -c 5 3000000 5706890290 < input.txt  2006-03-28, 12:26 #26 BotXXX   Aug 2003 Europe 2·97 Posts Some more testing. Just to be full ;) GMP-ECM 6.1 beta 2 with GMP 4.1.4 Code: BotXXX P4 - GMP-ECM 6.1-beta2 [powered by GMP 4.1.4] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=651263285 Step 1 took 106172ms Step 2 took 50703ms Run 2 out of 3: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=612425771 Step 1 took 106078ms Step 2 took 50547ms Run 3 out of 3: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3694284041 Step 1 took 106281ms Step 2 took 50656ms GMP-ECM 6.1 beta 2 with GMP 4.1.4 and --enable-asm-redc Code: BotXXX P4 - GMP-ECM plus 6.1-beta2 [powered by GMP 4.1.4] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=924551896 Step 1 took 139406ms Step 2 took 51954ms Run 2 out of 3: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3221873555 Step 1 took 139765ms Step 2 took 52047ms Run 3 out of 3: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2106245650 Step 1 took 139453ms Step 2 took 52000ms  2006-03-28, 17:42 #27 Mystwalker   Jul 2004 Potsdam, Germany 3·277 Posts I've just completed my testing on the P4. Test setup: GMP-ECM 6.1-beta2 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 769796556223507108014689426618774206137361105008821878590181519473125558008385695057 7371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824 814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=579882999 default: Step 1 took 113109ms Step 2 took 59000ms --enable-asm-redc: Step 1 took 181329ms Step 2 took 62281ms Using the -v option, I noticed that each step of stage2 is slower or equally fsat with --enable-asm-redc.  2006-03-28, 17:53 #28 Andi47   Oct 2004 Austria 2·17·73 Posts Please post your curves also into the M1701-Thread. When all do benchmarking with the c205, we will complete the 40 digit level just by running benchmark curves ECM 6.0.1 with GMP 4.2 Code: GMP-ECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2577813280 Step 1 took 82376ms Step 2 took 29635ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2350816680 Step 1 took 82366ms Step 2 took 29762ms Run 3 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3230958904 Step 1 took 82414ms Step 2 took 29808ms Run 4 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2788206171 Step 1 took 82462ms Step 2 took 29829ms Run 5 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=261214256 Step 1 took 82501ms Step 2 took 29796ms No change in speed between 4.1.999 and 4.2 I will time a couple of curves on M1061 tomorrow to compare the timings with Prime95. Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 2006-03-28 at 17:56  2006-03-28, 19:19   #29
Phil MjX

Sep 2004

5×37 Posts Hello !

I think in the ecm-dev list (or P Zimmermann paper "20 years of ECM"):

the --enable-asm-redc works for "smaller" numbers (<180 digits ??
the bigger ones being squarred with another method in gmp-ecm)
that's why you won't see no effect with such a "large c205 number",
try a bench with the c126 I have provided (currently ggnfs'ing)...

quoting the ecm-dev archives :
Quote:
 I have svn-commited some asm functions for Redc and combined Mul/Redc. For stage2, there is essentially no effect. For stage1, the gain is 0 to 30% depending on the size of the input and the architecture (for large input, the gain is 0). Below is some benchs for the architectures I've been working on. All the best, Pierrick. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ECM.rev908 powered by GMP-4.1.4 (+ PG's patch for AMD64). Timings are for input number: c155 Stage1 Stage2 Pentium M at 1.7 GHz: B1=1e5 asm: 2850 2510 noasm: 3630 2560 Opteron 250 at 2.4 GHz: B1=1e6 asm: 4900 5400 noasm: 7000 5620 Pentium 4 at 3 GHz: B1=1e5 asm: 1880 2410 noasm: 2260 2410 Athlon MP 2200+ at 1.8 GHz: B1=1e5 [cpu with high loadavg] asm: 2110 2180 noasm: 2330 2250
I can send my pentium M binaries for testing purposes to anyone who PM me
(caution, currently compiled with gmp 4.1.99)

Best regards.
Philippe.

some benchs with the Spock number :

Quote:
 GMP-ECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=131644919 Step 1 took 191044ms Step 2 took 56208ms GMP-ECM 6.1-beta2 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1734072750 Step 1 took 188313ms Step 2 took 60578ms No great improvement in step 1, worse in step 2 GMP-ECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 491853986948777594673218825453230605859928447069055088395227463891218667208716253406266089004846828871229829486993713464642129 (126 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=4016636513, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3332598043 Step 1 took 90834ms Step 2 took 33105ms GMP-ECM 6.1-beta2 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 491853986948777594673218825453230605859928447069055088395227463891218667208716253406266089004846828871229829486993713464642129 (126 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1859033613 Step 1 took 77282ms Step 2 took 33234ms Better in step 1, same time in step 2

Last fiddled with by Phil MjX on 2006-03-28 at 19:22  2006-03-28, 20:02 #30 VJS   Dec 2004 13×23 Posts Again guys watch your b2 bounds! They are different... Increasing from 4e9 to 5.7e9 between the clients, about 40%. try setting the b2 bounds in the command line for a accurate comparision or simply multiply the time for the lesser bound by 140%. Any idea when a windows athlon exe will be availabe? I'd test it on composites between 150-180 digits at the 40 and 45-digit levels. tlc4tvm at yahoo if someone has one.  2006-03-28, 21:24   #31
Phil MjX

Sep 2004

5×37 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by VJS Again guys watch your b2 bounds! They are different... Increasing from 4e9 to 5.7e9 between the clients, about 40%. try setting the b2 bounds in the command line for a accurate comparision or simply multiply the time for the lesser bound by 140%.
I do partially agree :

One should use the -v option and multiply the time taken by one curve by the number of curves needed to "complete" a given range (eg the 40 digits level with B1=3e6) and then make comparisons between versions.

But in an other hand, increasing the B2 bound by 40% doesn't mean you'll increase the probability of finding a factor by 40% (by far)...so multiplying the time by 140% doesn't mean anything...

example with 6.0.1 : 2440 curves @ 3e6 needed for the 40 digits level
with 6.1.beta2 : 2350 curves @ 3e6

time to complete one curve with star trek number with my pc and 6.0.1 :
247.2 seconds
time for one curve with 6.1.beta2
248.9 seconds

time to complete the 40 digits level with 6.0.1 :
167 hours and a half
with 6.1.beta2 :
162 hours and a half

the winner is gmp-ecm 6.1beta2...

Bye.
Philippe.

Last fiddled with by Phil MjX on 2006-03-28 at 21:30  2006-03-28, 22:51   #32
Prime95
P90 years forever!

Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

2×4,079 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by Phil MjX the winner is gmp-ecm 6.1beta2....
Have you tried the use gwnum option? GPL compatible libraries are available at ftp://mersenne.org/gimps  2006-03-29, 04:59   #33
Andi47

Oct 2004
Austria

9B216 Posts Quote:
 Originally Posted by BotXXX I also did some tests on a idle Pentium 4 2.93 GHz cpu on the c205 of M1701 GMP-ECM 6.1 beta 2 with GMP 4.2 Code: BotXXX P4 - GMP-ECM 6.1-beta2 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1386523129 Step 1 took 94531ms Step 2 took 45203ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=872759764 Step 1 took 95313ms Step 2 took 45593ms Run 3 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1114418950 Step 1 took 95547ms Step 2 took 45641ms Run 4 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=336469270 Step 1 took 95219ms Step 2 took 46484ms Run 5 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3872377383 Step 1 took 95266ms Step 2 took 46328ms GMP-ECM 6.0.1 with GMP 4.2 and higher B2 Code: BotXXX P4 - GMP-ECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM] Input number is 7697965562235071080146894266187742061373611050088218785901815194731255580083856950577371947531398134889789342805715603682570745833656049440232111949793108909207499508865559739953421824814393825917900810041 (205 digits) Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=1770901312 Step 1 took 95594ms Step 2 took 43465ms Run 2 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=2895472145 Step 1 took 95109ms Step 2 took 43899ms Run 3 out of 5: Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3492736638 Step 1 took 94750ms Step 2 took 43696ms All three were compiled in MinGW with GCC 3.4.5 (mingw special) and run with the following command line ecm -c 5 3000000 < input.txt except the last one (6.0.1 with higher B2) which used ecm -c 5 3000000 5706890290 < input.txt
For this one the winner is ecm-6.0.1  Thread Tools Show Printable Version Email this Page

All times are UTC. The time now is 22:31.

Tue Jan 31 22:31:52 UTC 2023 up 166 days, 20 hrs, 0 users, load averages: 1.10, 0.87, 0.94 This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔